Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning: Face-to-Face vs. Computer-Mediated Communication 303067424X, 9783030674243

Citation preview

Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning Face-to-Face vs. Computer-Mediated Communication Shin Yi Chew Lee Luan Ng

Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning

Shin Yi Chew • Lee Luan Ng

Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning Face-to-Face vs. Computer-Mediated Communication

Shin Yi Chew Faculty of Languages and Linguistics Universiti Malaya Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Lee Luan Ng Faculty of Languages and Linguistics Universiti Malaya Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ISBN 978-3-030-67424-3    ISBN 978-3-030-67425-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

In traditional or conventional face-to-face classroom interaction, one would usually expect the same few students to respond whenever a teacher asks a question during the lesson. This makes traditional language classes quite unexciting. As the Internet and online chatting become more popular, the authors wonder if more responses could be gathered from more students when the same question posed in a face-to-face setting is asked in an online medium. This inspired the first author’s PhD research study; which was guided and evaluated by the second author of this book. To date, researchers have studied learners’ language output or performance in various media, yet there is a dearth of research that takes into account the learners’ unique characteristics when they interact in different discussion settings. In view of the fact that learners are the focal point in the teaching and learning process, learners’ individual characteristics such as personality and level of language proficiency should be taken into account so that more personalized and useful guidelines can be drawn up and applied for the benefit of language learners. While writing this book and teaching communication-related courses, the authors were actively learning and reflecting on the complexity of the communication process. The Covid-19 pandemic is ongoing while this book is being published, which perhaps makes the timing of publication particularly relevant as computer-mediated communication is fast becoming an integral part of education, work, and interpersonal communication. In this book, we hope to provide readers with information dealing with various aspects of computer-mediated communications, as well as ideas on how to capitalize on the various media linked to computer-mediated v

vi 

PREFACE

communication, which we hope will be useful in utilizing the medium effectively. Apart from that, by reading this book, we hope the readers will also learn about the tendencies of behavior for certain types of learners when involved in computer-mediated interaction. Although this book is related to English language learning, its content is also applicable to readers’ daily interpersonal communication. The communication models and theories may provide food for thought in terms of addressing instances when there is a “breakdown” in computer-mediated communication. Set in Malaysia whereby a majority of the learners are learning English as a second language, the book begins (Chap. 1) by highlighting the role of communication and discussion in language learning, while Chap. 2 provides a view of the communication process through various models. Chapter 3 explains computer-mediated communication, the relevant theories, and how they can be applied in language classes. Chapter 4 explores the differences between computer-mediated communication and traditional face-to-face discussions by focusing on learners’ different personalities and levels of language proficiency. Other factors which influence communication during group discussions are discussed in Chap. 5. Some parts of Chaps. 4 and 5 are from an article published in The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher [The relevance of personality and language proficiency on participation styles (2016): https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40299-­016-­0288-­z]. Chapter 6 discusses the implications for language learning, and the book ends with Chap. 7, which focuses on the current developments in language learning and computer-mediated communication. Finally yet importantly, we would like to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt thanks to the editors and reviewers of this book for their invaluable comments. We are also appreciative for the support from Universiti Malaya Research Program (UMRG) Fund (RP052D-17SBS) which has provided us the assistance we need in completing this book. We also owe our family members a great debt of thanks for their support and encouragement. To Rino Shafierul Azizie Shahrir Raghbir, our research assistant, thank you for your contributions to the final chapter and your hard work in updating the reference lists. Not to be forgotten, we would

 PREFACE 

vii

like to convey our appreciation to the supportive administrators as well as colleagues at work, and especially to you who are reading this. We hope this book will be of benefit especially during this period, when computer-­ mediated communication is fast becoming indispensable. Shin Yi Chew  Lee Luan Ng

Contents

1 Communication is Vital  1 2 Models of Communication Process 17 3 Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) 27 4 CMC vs. F2F: Discourse and Participation Styles of Different Language Learners 53 5 Other Factors Influencing Communication during Group Discussions 73 6 Implications for Language Learning 83 7 Current Developments 89

Index

101

ix

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 6.1

An example of online discussion The simplest model of communication An intermediary model Shannon’s information theory model (1948) An interactive model A transactional model An ecological model of the communication process An example of the use of quotations in online discussion Group discussion model for language-learners

10 17 18 19 21 22 23 32 84

xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 4.1

Propositions for the ecological model of the communication process (Foulger, 2004a) The use of English language among language learners with different personalities and language proficiency in F2F and online discussions

25 67

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Communication is Vital

Originating from the Latin word communis, which means “common,” communication can be defined as a transmission of an idea or feeling so that the sender and receiver share the same, common, understanding. The most frequently occurring ways of communication are through the spoken word, the written word, visual images and body language. With the advancement of technology, computer-mediated communication has also become another popular mode of communication. Communicating effectively is an important life skill that can influence one’s career and personal life. There have been much focus on effective communication. What exactly is effective communication? Effective communication occurs when one manages to convey his or her point(s) across to recipient(s) so that he or she understands them and the objective is achieved. In the communication process, language is the predominant tool used to convey meaning. Language consists of words which can be in forms of symbols in written language and sounds in spoken language. In addition, one may also use signs, gestures, facial expressions, body postures and other types of body language to deliver message(s) to other people. Effective communication demands that the sender and recipient of a message have the same interpretation of the language used during communication process. Communicating using a language that is not one’s mother tongue can be complicated, especially for a learner. Language instructors continually © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_1

1

2 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

seek better ways to help learners communicate effectively. Since practice makes perfect, one of the best ways to improve communication is through communication itself; as exemplified by the following quote: Communication is a skill that you can learn. It’s like riding a bicycle or typing. If you’re willing to work at it, you can rapidly improve the quality of every part of your life. (Tracy, n.d.)

The following sections explain the role of communication in helping learners to acquire and improve their language through background and history, theories, recent developments, local context as well as its application in language classes.

1.1   Background of Communication and Language Learning The famous Chinese proverb “learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere” emphasizes the importance of learning. Learning is interconnected with language (Barton & Lee, 2013). Thus, learning a language is particularly important for us, the social beings, who need to communicate with different people on a daily basis and learn different matters continuously. In the nineteenth century, language learning emerged with a focus on grammar-translation (Matamoros-González, Rojas, Romero, Vera-­ Quiñonez, & Soto, 2017). This approach required learners to learn a language by memorizing new words or grammatical structure. Learners also learned through translations in reading and writing activities (Matamoros-­ González et al., 2017. These language classes were teacher-centered and learners typically played a passive role. The “grammar-translation” method received criticisms because of its emphasis on impractical grammar rules and vocabulary. Many learners could not speak the target language naturally with intelligible pronunciation. Thus, a direct method was introduced. As the name suggests, the target language was used directly in its instruction and communication in language classes (Setiyadi, 2020). Translation and the use of first language were shunned. Language learners learned to speak everyday language by imitating their instructors, who focused on phonetics and applying visual aids such as pictures and objects. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, an audio-­ lingual method was introduced. With this method, language learners were

1  COMMUNICATION IS VITAL 

3

expected to learn language skills in the order of listening, speaking, reading and writing through imitation and drills, with an emphasis on grammatical accuracy (Setiyadi, 2020). Even though the direct method and the audio-lingual method emphasized the importance of listening and speaking skills as well as exposing learners to the use of target language, they were still unable to communicate using the target language in real-world contexts (Dos Santos, 2019). Therefore, the communicative language teaching method was introduced in the last decades of the twentieth century with the goal of developing learners’ communicative competence through meaningful tasks that required learners to communicate with their partner(s) to find out what they do not know (Dos Santos, 2020). These tasks provide learners with the opportunity to practice their communication skills immediately. This approach is still dominant today, although technology has changed how communication works. Nonetheless, with the communicative approach, language learners still face problems communicating within a speech community. This means that there is no method that is able to drive learners to learn a language successfully. An eclectic approach which calls for the use of different approaches, methodologies, techniques and activities depending on lesson objectives and learners has been created (Sarifa, 2020). Apart from that, there is also a need to understand communication and language acquisition theories; these are presented in the following section.

1.2   Theories on Communication and Language Learning Communication, whether online or face-to-face, can be effective in establishing cooperative learning and introducing a new topic (Cohen & Lotan, 2014; Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2019). Communication that involves the exchange of messages is able to promote second-language learning. This is supported by popular theories such as Krashen’s input hypothesis (1985), Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis (1995) and Long’s interaction hypothesis (1996). These theories explain the way a second language is acquired and how communication can play a vital role in second-language learning. With regard to Krashen’s input hypothesis (1981, 1996), Krashen claims that language can be acquired by receiving input at i + 1, where i is the existing proficiency level, while +1 is the language just beyond the

4 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

current level. Since every learner is an individual who acquires linguistic competence at a different pace, Krashen (1996) suggests natural communicative input in the design of a curriculum to ensure that each learner can obtain i + 1 input. Therefore, communicative tasks which contain natural communicative input should be included in a language class. In the affective hypothesis, Krashen (1987) argues that comprehensible input will not lead to language acquisition if the input is filtered out before reaching the learner’s language acquisition device (LAD) in the brain. The filtering or “mental block” may happen when the learner is anxious, stressed, or has low self-confidence or low motivation (Krashen, 1987). Learners who have a low affective filter are believed to be better at learning a second language as they are more motivated, less embarrassed to make mistakes and tend to interact more with others to acquire more comprehensible input (Krashen, 1987). Emphasizing the idea of comprehensible input at level i + 1, Krashen (1994) has argued that one-way comprehensible input is the only requirement for one to acquire a second language. However, Swain (1995) does not find Krashen’s idea of comprehensible input to work for her students and believes that comprehensible output is also important in the learning of a second language. She asserts that output can help learners to enhance fluency, notice the gaps in their linguistic knowledge and afford learners the opportunities to try new or unfamiliar language forms and structures, as well as receive feedback from others about their use of language. In other words, comprehensible output enables learners to convey messages with some challenges in producing the second language as they notice their linguistic problems from the feedback of the listener. Noticing a problem “pushes” the learner to revise his or her output and consequently may be led into “a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension” (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, p. 2b). Following Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis, Lightbrown and Spada (2013), Long (1996), Pica (1994) and others postulate the interactionist view of second-language acquisition which recognizes the role of two-way interactions. They believe in the importance of learners being given the chance to negotiate meaning through clarification in meaningful activities. Communicative tasks such as discussion is one of the meaningful activities that can enable learners to work together to negotiate meaning for mutual understanding by modifying and restructuring the discourse when difficulties in comprehending message occurs (Guo, 2020; Pica, 1994). Modification and restructuring include simplifying linguistics,

1  COMMUNICATION IS VITAL 

5

repeating, clarifying and doing conformation checks (Ariza & Hancock, 2003). According to Long’s interaction hypothesis (1996), when learners negotiate meaning, their comprehension of the input increases and they usually take cognizance of salient linguistic features. This is deemed beneficial to the learning of a second language. Generally, communication which encourages two-way interactions entails “comprehensible input” which enables one to understand the message, and “output” which enables one to express and negotiate meaning (Krashen, 1985; Long, 1996; Swain, 1995). The input and output produced during interactions provide learners with opportunities to be exposed to the target language and practice what they have learned about the language. Group discussion is one of the interactive tasks often carried out in classrooms and meetings at the workplace. It is deemed to be more interesting than listening to a teacher’s presentation, as it gives students the opportunity to be challenged to think about the topic and share new ideas (Cohen & Lotan, 2014; Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2019).

1.3   Communication, Language Learning & Technology There have been many changes in language classrooms. The most obvious include the blackboards that have turned white and have now even become computerized and smart. We have more technical tools such as projectors, LCD screens and computers in the classrooms too. With the advent of the Internet, there is an even bigger shift in language learning and communication styles. Technology is playing a crucial role in the way language is learned. It offers learners more flexibility and freedom in learning at their own pace, comfort and convenience (Bower, 2017). With the vast information available online, learners can even acquire any useful skills they wish to be equipped with on their own. In addition, learners are empowered to monitor their progress in learning. Therefore, it is not surprising that technology has been found to enhance learners’ motivation and progress (Bower, 2017; Coker, 2020). With the rapid changes in technology, the learning process is transformed (Coker, 2020). Computer-mediated communication and “new” forms of language have emerged. Discussions can now be held face-to-face

6 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

or online. The potential of online discussions and the differences between face-to-face and online discussions will be further discussed in Chap. 3. Although technology has opened doors to many learning opportunities, the mere application of technology itself is not found to be fruitful. A recent study showed that teachers, especially in Finland, do not see the value and benefits of using digital tools (Lavonen, 2017). This shows that the use of digital tools alone may not reap positive outcomes. There is a need to understand the good practices that should come hand in hand with the integration of technical tools in lessons (Lavonen, 2017). Moreover, language learning is dependent on human factors or individual differences (see Chap. 4). Taking Malaysia as an example, the next section explains the language learning scenario in Asia, where much focus is placed on the learning of English as a second language (ESL).

1.4   Communication, Language Learning and the Malaysian Context In Malaysia, emphasis has always been put on teaching English as a second language (ESL). This emphasis is heightened by globalization, which has encouraged the use of English as an international language (McKay, 2018). English language has also become very important in enabling Malaysians to access sources in critical fields such as science, technology, trade, business, commerce and media, and to be more competitive in the knowledge-based global society (Asha, 2012). Apart from that, the need to increase the command of English language among citizens is also due to the worrying scenario that English language standard in Malaysia has deteriorated (Sani, 2018). In attempts to improve English language proficiency among ESL learners, the Malaysian government has introduced a policy of “Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the English Language”. Some initiatives under this policy include allocating an extra period for English language lessons in schools and implementing Dual Language programme (DLP) which allows the use of English in the teaching and learning of science and mathematics in selected schools and classes (Suliman, Nor & Yunos, 2017).

1  COMMUNICATION IS VITAL 

7

Despite various efforts, Malaysian graduates and school-leavers still face difficulty getting jobs due to their poor English communication skills and a lack of critical thinking (Samuel, Tee, & Symaco, 2017; Singh, 2018). The Ministry of Education in Malaysia has thus developed “The Roadmap for English Language Education” (2015–2025) to plan for effective ways to improve the standards of English language among Malaysians (MoE, 2015). The Common European Framework of References (CEFR) is employed due to its international standard and its focus on producing learners who can communicate and interact in English (Sani, 2018). The need for better communication skills and collaborative skills is further sparked by the Industrial Revolution 4.0 (IR 4.0) (A. S. Md. Abdul Haseeb, 2018). IR 4.0 refers to the digital transformation through digitization and automation (Götz & Jankowska, 2017). With IR 4.0, many entry-level jobs will be replaced by robotics. To face the challenges posed by IR 4.0, we need to become more specialized, in possession of critical thinking and equipped with sufficient digital and data literacy; apart from good communication and collaborative skills (A.  S. Md. Abdul Haseeb, 2018). The Ministry of Education in Malaysia has long recognized the importance of ICT or the use of technology in education through various projects such as Smart Schools, Educational web TV, MySchoolNet, Frog VLE and Google classrooms. Schools are also equipped with Internet access and computers to help learners to learn more effectively and be prepared to be the future workforce of the technology-driven world, albeit some rural areas still waiting for these facilities. All these efforts show that Malaysia recognizes the importance of integrating technology in lessons. However, are teachers and students ready for the change? Most of the students who are digital natives are (Rahman, 2016). Based on a study by the United Nations, Malaysia is the champion among the developing countries and number four worldwide for the proportion of digital natives—online users with more than 5 years of experience. Therefore, “If we (educators) teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.” Language educators need to think like their learners and design meaningful learning experiences for them to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century (Amin Embi as cited in Rahman, 2016). Generally, teachers are found to be competent in basic ICT skills and other internet-related applications (Umar & Mohamad Tarmizi Mohd Yusof, 2014). Thus, utilizing technology to promote communication in language lessons is achievable, though there are still concerns on the

8 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

availability of suitable and sufficient devices, speed of internet connection, the time factor, appropriate strategies, etc. With pushed change from the global Covid-19 pandemic, it is high time that we equipped ourselves with a better understanding of the use of technology in communication and language learning. The next section explores the potential of discussion activity in promoting communication and language learning among learners and the changes brought about by technology.

1.5   Communication in Group Discussions In language classes, one of the most popular communication tasks is discussion. This is to be expected since students usually like to socialize and interact with each other (Cohen & Lotan, 2014; So, Choi, Lim, & Xiong, 2012). Therefore, discussions can be effective in generating interest, introducing a new topic and establishing cooperative learning (Cohen & Lotan, 2014; Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2019). Collaborative discussion is found to be more interesting than listening to teacher’s presentation and it also gives students the opportunity to be challenged to think about the topic and share new ideas (Cohen & Lotan, 2014; Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2019). Apart from that, discussions can also enhance learners’ second-language learning proficiency (Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Saaed & Mohammed, 2020; Mehrabi & Homapour, 2018) especially when the situation encourages low filter or less anxiety among learners (Krashen, 1981). Discussion is therefore one of the main elements for successful teaching and learning (Pollock & Squire, 2001). Its importance as a learning strategy is widely acknowledged (Ellis & Calvo, 2004; Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Salomonsson, 2020). Discussions can serve three important roles for participants: to ask for information, clarify matters and share information (Stapa, 2007). Discussions are also a form of social practice which is believed to be an essential part of learning, since the presence of human beings means having to engage in all sorts of different pursuits which require interactions and having to learn from social practices (Davis, 2013; Salomonsson, 2020). The exchange of ideas or communication that takes place during discussions can promote second-language learning. This is supported by theories such as Krashen’s input hypothesis (1985), Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis (1995) and Long’s interaction hypothesis (1996). These theories (explained in Sect. 1.2) explain how discussions can play an

1  COMMUNICATION IS VITAL 

9

important role in second-language learning based on a hypothesis of how a second language is acquired. However, not all learners have the chance to talk during discussions. Discussions in a language class are usually led and dominated by teachers (Warschauer, 1997; Williams, 2001). In other words, learners’ participation in discussions is limited by teacher’s talk. Therefore, the current trend is for learners to play the central role in discussions, whereas language teachers are positioned as facilitators (Brown, 2003; Evans, Ward, Shaw, Walker, Knight, & Sutherland-Smith, 2020). Apart from teacher’s talk, the discussion settings can also affect learners’ participation; as reported by Chew and Ng (2016, 2021), Fitze (2006), and Warschauer (1996). In an attempt to encourage learners to play a more active role in class discussions, learner–learner discussions are encouraged. Leaner–learner discussions refer to interactions between or among learners in pairs or in groups (Mathew, 2020). Peer interaction has been analyzed and found to be effective in affording language learning (Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Salomonsson, 2020). There are a number of benefits in promoting learner–learner discussion: firstly, it creates a community of peers and create opportunities for collaboration, scaffolding and social construction of meaning (Rovai, 2001); in addition, learner–learner interaction may make learners more satisfied and interact more frequently (Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Mathew, 2020; Salomonsson, 2020). With more production from learners, learners’ attitude and achievement may become more positive (Sherman & Klein, 1995). Based on this premise, language classes should be designed to promote interactions between learners. Teachers meanwhile should play the role of facilitators. With the advent of technology, discussions are not limited to face-to-­ face settings. Nowadays, discussions can also be held online through networked devices. Online discussions differ from face-to-face discussions in that they provide an opportunity for ongoing conversation between a group of users who can enjoy more unrestrained and flexible participation (Hsu, 2020; Saaed & Mohammed, 2020). With no limitation by class hours and physical classroom, online discussions are widely appreciated and commonly used (Hsu, 2020; Zhao & Lei, 2017; Hew & Cheung, 2012). It is also believed to be useful in developing learners’ critical thinking, teamwork and reflection (Piskurich, 2003; Zhao & Lei, 2017). Online discussion can occur through e-mail exchanges, bulletin boards, forums, chat rooms, social media, instant messaging etc. Most discussion groups

10 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

are text-based and allow users to insert website links, images, audio and even video files. Figure 1.1 is an example of online discussions held at forummotion. com whereby forums can be created for free. In online forums, participants can communicate and discuss about different topics by posting their messages online. The messages are usually presented in chronological order and look conversational. This serves as a good platform to share ideas, discuss important issues in depth and foster relationships through social conversation (Chaka, 2020). However, such linear discussions lack coherence and may be difficult for consensus, resolution or conclusion to be reached (Chaka, 2020; Rochat, Hauw, Gür, & Seifert, 2018). Apart from that, online text-based discussions may also be unappealing to those who lack familiarity with technological tools and have limited reading and writing skills. Further discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of computer-­ mediated communication compared to face-to-face discussions are presented in Chap. 3.

Fig. 1.1  An example of online discussion

1  COMMUNICATION IS VITAL 

11

1.6   Summary Chapter 1 explores the importance of communication in language acquisition by looking at developments in learning approaches and the reasons why communicative language teaching is popular. In addition, the relevant theories which support the role of communication or interaction in language learning are discussed. The important theories include Krashen’s input hypothesis, affective filter hypothesis, Swain’s comprehensible output hypothesis and Long’s interaction hypothesis. The changes and development brought about by technology in communication and language learning are also explored and linked to Malaysian context. Lastly, the potential of discussion activity as a communicative task in a second-­ language classroom is highlighted. Before moving on to compare discussions held online and face-to-face, the communication processes that occur in discussions need to be understood so that they can be facilitated more effectively. Models of the communication process are described in the following chapter.

References Ariza, E.  N., & Hancock, S. (2003). Second language acquisition theories as a framework for creating distance learning courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2) Retrieved from http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/142/710 A. S. MD Abdul Haseeb. (2018, January 10). Higher education in the era of IR 4.0. New Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/education/2018/01/323591/higher-­education-­era-­ir-­40. Asha Doshi. (2012). Changing tides: The story of the English language in Malaysia. In Zuraidah Mohd Don (Ed.), English in multicultural Malaysia: Pedagogy and applied research (pp.  15–30). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. New York: Routledge. Bower, M. (2017). Technology integration as an educational imperative. In M. Bower (Ed.), Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice (pp. 1–16). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. Brown, D. M. (2003). Learner-centered conditions that ensure students’ success in learning. Education, 124(1), 99–104. Chaka, C. (2020). Online polylogues and the speech acts of online discussion forums. Journal of Educators Online, 17(2), 14–30.

12 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2016). The relevance of personality and language proficiency on the participation style of ESL learners in face-to-face and online discussions. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 605–613. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40299-­016-­0288-­z Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). The influence of personality and language proficiency on ESL learners’ word contributions in face-to-face and synchronous online forums. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 199–221. https://doi. org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp199-­221 Cohen, E., & Lotan, R. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Coker, D. (2020). Revolution in remote learning: A plan for radical improvement a policy recommendation to transform technology to improve student learning. In Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning (pp. 329–343). Online, The Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/217457/. Davis, H. S. (2013). Discussion as a bridge: Strategies that engage adolescent and adult learning styles in the postsecondary classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 68–76. Dos Santos, L.  M. (2019). English language learning for engineering students: Application of a visual-only video teaching strategy. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 37–44. Dos Santos, L. M. (2020). The discussion of communicative language teaching approach in language classrooms. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(2), 104–109. Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2004). Learning through discussions in blended environments. Educational Media International, 41(3), 263–274. https://doi. org/10.1080/09523980410001680879 Evans, S., Ward, C., Shaw, N., Walker, A., Knight, T., & Sutherland-Smith, W. (2020). Interprofessional education and practice guide no. 10: Developing, supporting and sustaining a team of facilitators in online interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(1), 4–10. Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67–86. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/ 44047/1/10_01_fitze.pdf Götz, M., & Jankowska, B. (2017). Clusters and industry 4.0—Do they fit together? European Planning Studies, 25(9), 1633–1653. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/09654313.2017.1327037 Guo, S. (2020). Task design to enhance learners’ collaboration and engagement in an online Chinese learning environment. In W. W. Ma, K. Tong, & W. B. A. Tso (Eds.), Learning environment and design (Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook) (pp.  159–174). Singapore: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­15-­8167-­0_10

1  COMMUNICATION IS VITAL 

13

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York, NY: Springer. Hsu, C. (2020). Collaboration through online discussion board: A discourse analysis of CALL in a normal university in China. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL(6), pp. 278–289. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call6.18 Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S.  D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Krashen, S.  D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall. Krashen, S.  D. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N.  Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 45–77). London: Academic Press. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Lavonen, J. (2017). Governance decentralisation in education: Finnish innovation in education. Revista De Educación a Distancia, 53(1), 1–22. https://doi. org/10.6018/red/53/1 Lightbrown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.  163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia, Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press. Matamoros-González, J. A., Rojas, M. A., Romero, J. P., Vera-Quiñonez, S., & Soto, S. T. (2017). English language teaching approaches: A comparison of the grammar-translation, audiolingual, communicative, and natural approaches. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11), 965–973. https://doi. org/10.17507/tpls.0711.04 Mathew, D. I. R. (2020). Learner centered e-interactions: An exploration of context and practicality that influences e-learning experience. International Journal on E-Learning, 19(3), 229–241. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https:// www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/207622/. McKay, S. L. (2018). English as an international language: What it is and what it means for pedagogy. RELC Journal, 49(1), 9–23. https://doi. org/10.1177/0033688217738817 Mehrabi, M., & Homapour, S. (2018). The effect of the substrate type in virtual concurrent classes on the oral comprehension of the Iranian language learners: The case of Adobe Connect Platform and Skype Software. Language Related Research, 9(2), 251–276.

14 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

MoE (Ministry of Education). (2015). English language education reform in Malaysia: The roadmap 2015–2025. Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/35736437/The_Roadmap Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-­ language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­1770.1994.tb01115.x Piskurich, G. M. (Ed.). (2003). The AMA handbook of e-learning: Effective design, implementation, and technology solutions. AMACOM. Pollock, S., & Squire, D. (2001). Ways of connecting media and learning. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogy for new technologies (pp. 207–218). London: Kogan Page. Rahman, D. (2016). Changing how Malaysia (and the world) educates. The Star Online. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/online-­ exclusive/whats-­y our-­s tatus/2016/05/12/changing-­h ow-­m alaysia­and-­the-­world-­educates. Rochat, N., Hauw, D., Gür, G., & Seifert, L. (2018). Understanding trail runners’ activity on online community forums: An inductive analysis of discussion topics. Journal of Human Kinetics, 61(1), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/ hukin-­2017-­0125 Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Education Technology Research and Development, 49(4). Retrieved from https://www.aect.org/Intranet/Publications/etrd/4904.html. Saaed, S., & Mohammed, A. (2020). The effect of using discussion boards on EFL writing classes: An action research case study. Academic Journal of Nawroz University, 9(3), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.25007/ajnu.v9n3a773 Salomonsson, J. (2020). Modified output and learner uptake in casual online learner-learner conversation. System, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2020.102306 Samuel, M., Tee, M. Y., & Symaco, L. P. (Eds.). (2017). Education in Malaysia: Developments and challenges. Singapore: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­4427-­4 Sani, R. (2018, February 7). Building capacity to increase English proficiency. News Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/education/2018/02/332968/building-­capacity-­increase-­english-­proficiency. Sarifa, N. (2020). Enhancing EFL learners’ English proficiency and intelligence by implementing the eclectic method of language teaching. Arab World English Journal, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3581338 Setiyadi, A. B. (2020). Teaching English as a foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 1–163). Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu. ISBN 978-623-228-389-3. Sherman, G. P., & Klein, J. D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 5–24.

1  COMMUNICATION IS VITAL 

15

Singh, R. (2018). Job hurdle. The Sun. Retrieved from https://www.pressreader. com/malaysia/the-­sunmalaysia/20180123/281492161737768. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2019). Instructional technology and media for learning (12th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. So, H.-J., Choi, H., Lim, W. Y., & Xiong, Y. (2012). Little experience with ICT: Are they really the Net Generation student-teachers? Computers & Education, 59(4), 1234–1245. Stapa, S. H. (2007). Socio-cognitive theory in second language learning: The use of online forum among adult distance learners. The International Journal of Learning, 14(7), 137–142. Suliman, A., Nor, M. Y. M., & Yunus, M. M. (2017). Dual Language Programme in Malaysian secondary schools: Glancing through the students’ readiness and unravelling the unheard voices. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies, 17(4), 128–143. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.  G. Widdowson (pp.  125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. Tracy, B. (n.d.). Quotes.net. Retrieved from https://www.quotes.net/ quote/54612. Umar, I. N., & Mohamad Tarmizi Mohd Yusof. (2014). A study on Malaysian teachers’ level of ICT skills and practices, and its impact on teaching and learning. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 979–984. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.331 Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26. https://doi. org/10.1558/cj.v13i2-­3.7-­26 Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.1997.tb05514.x Williams, J. A. (2001). Classroom conversations: Opportunities to learn for ESL students in mainstream classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 54(8) Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204989 Zhao, K., & Lei, C. (2017). Technology-enhanced content and language integrated learning in Chinese tertiary English classes: Potentials and challenges. In H. Reinders, D. Nunan, & B. Zou (Eds.), Innovation in language learning and teaching (pp.  89–113). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/978-­1-­137-­60092-­9_5

CHAPTER 2

Models of Communication Process

The differences between a discussion carried out face-to-face and online can be better understood through the analysis of numerous communication models such as: (1) the simplest model; (2) Shannon’s information theory model; (3) the intermediary model (gatekeeper/ two-step flow model); (4) the interactive or cybernetic model; (5) the transactional model; and (6) Foulger’s Ecological Model of Communication (2004). These models explain the process of communication and the factors that can instigate successful discussions.

2.1   The Simplest Model of Communication As the name suggests, the simplest model (see  Fig.2.1)  simply shows a sender sending a message through a selected channel to a receiver (Jurin, Roush, & Danter, 2010). This model only addresses one-way communication. It is not sufficient to explain the complex communication process that happens in the real world. Message Sender

Message Channel

Receiver

Fig. 2.1  The simplest model of communication

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_2

17

18 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

The next section explains the intermediary model of communication, which enlightens readers on the gatekeeper(s) who can complicate the communication process in the real world.

2.2   Intermediary Model of Communication The intermediary model of communication (see  Fig. 2.2)  comprises an intermediary or gatekeeper who possesses the ability to choose, decide and even change what messages to be received by the audience (Katz, 1957). The examples of people holding an intermediary role are the editors or reviewers who choose articles to be included in a newspaper, journal or magazine, or the moderators of online discussions. This model informs this study that the moderators of online discussions can play a major role in controlling the content shown but it is considerably harder for the facilitators in face-to-face discussions to control the visibility of the messages. Like the simplest model, the intermediary model of communication has ignores dynamic two-way communication. Thus, the next section explores Shannon’s information theory model (1948) which explains the communication process that is usually two-way.

2.3   Shannon’s Information Theory Model Shannon’s information theory model (1948) is considered to be the basis of all other communication models. It not only explains the way communication happens between a sender and receiver in telecommunication, but also the reasons why communication is sometimes ineffective. As shown in Fig. 2.3, Shannon’s information theory model illustrates the flow of the message or information from a source to a destination by passing through a channel. This model comprises eight components: . Information source from a person creating the message. 1 2. Message sent by the information source to be received by the receiver.

Speaker Fig. 2.2  An intermediary model

Gatekeeper

Audience

2  MODELS OF COMMUNICATION PROCESS 

information source

transmitter

receiver

signal

19

destination

received signal

message

message

noise source

Fig. 2.3  Shannon’s information theory model (1948)

3. A transmitter which transforms a message into a signal. It can be the mouth and body for face-to-face communication. Other examples of transmitters include telephone, television, computer and etc. 4. The signal flowing through a channel. 5. A channel is shown as a small unlabeled box in the middle of Shannon’s model. Through a channel, the signal can be transmitted from one person to another. In face-to-face communication, a channel is built of the air to create sound and the light to show one’s gesture. Other popular channels include electricity, paper, the postal system and radio waves. 6. Noise is a secondary signal which confuses the signal from the information source within a channel. The solution offered by Shannon to minimize the effect of noise is through correction of the detected error. Nowadays, noise has a broader meaning for problems linked to effective listening and interference which distorts original message. 7. A receiver converts the signal back as a message. For instance, a telephone, television or computer used to receive information or ears and eyes to receive information in the form of sound and gestures in face-to-face interaction. 8. A destination refers to the person or entity who receives and processes the message. Shannon’s information theory model has identified the essential components of communication and the relationship among them. However,

20 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

this linear model does not adequately show the complexity of the real-­ world communication process (Foulger, 2004b). Communication in the real world is more complex with messages, transmitters, signals, channels and receivers often layered serially and in parallel causing multiple signals to be transmitted and received. Furthermore, the communication in the real world is rarely direct and unidirectional as portrayed by the model. In addition, there are other factors such as culture, environment and relational history which can affect communication. This model is thus incomplete and may be more applicable to telephone and telegraph rather than to other media platforms. Shannon’s information theory model is also argued as “a model of the flow of information through a medium,” rather than a model of the communication process (Foulger, 2004b). Thus, the following sections continue to look for a suitable model to explain the discussion process. The next section explains the interactive model of communication, an improved adaptation of Shannon’s information theory model.

2.4   The Interactive Model (The Cybernetic Model) The elaboration of Shannon’s model which includes the two-way communication process is shown in the interactive model and the transactional model. The interactive model which was created by Weiner (as shown in Fig. 2.4), added the cybernetic concept of feedback on the received message so that the sender of information source can adapt or correct it (Weiner, 1948, 1986). Feedback here refers to message(s) and the feedback can be an information source which is transmitted and received by a destination, going through the process as shown in Shannon’s model. With the inclusion of feedback in the interactive model, the destination can convert into the information source and the source can turn into destination. Feedback is an important element in the communication process that can enhance learners’ ability to notice their linguistic gap and work on it (Swain, 1995). However, even though the important component of feedback has been added to the interactive model, it is still inadequate in explaining the communication process that occurs during discussions. There are still may other factors that need to be included. For example,

2  MODELS OF COMMUNICATION PROCESS 

INFORMATION SOURCE

TRANSMITTER

RECEIVER

SIGNAL

21

DESTINATION

RECEIVED SIGNAL

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

NOISE SOURCE FEED BACK

Fig. 2.4  An interactive model

the medium and the individual differences of people who are involved could affect the communication process. The next section looks at the transactional model of communication which is also an adaptation of Shannon’s information theory model (1948).

2.5   The Transactional Model of Communication As shown in Fig. 2.5, the transactional model of communication is generally deemed brilliant in portraying the way messages are exchanged, or two-way communication. It is also called the circular model of communication (Foulger, 2004b). This transactional model introduces us to the idea of communication which is not limited to the traditional face-to-face environment but can also be extended to other interactive mediums such as emails, radio and letters (Foulger, 2004b). In addition, the communicators’ personal experiences and cultural backgrounds in the interpretation of messages are also considered. Additionally, the important roles played by language, medium and feedback are also highlighted. Unlike linear models of communication (i.e. the intermediary model of communication and Shannon’s information theory model), this transactional model portrays communication as a simultaneous process in which the terms “sender” and “receiver” are replaced by “communicator”—one

22 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Message in Medium

e cod En ith w age ngu La

Communicator A

Re ce iv Int and e erp ret

Communicator B

Re

ce iv a n Int d ed erp ret

Message in Medium

e cod En ith w age ngu La

Fig. 2.5  A transactional model

who creates and receives messages. This model implies both communicators to be equal, which is often not the case even in interpersonal context. In reality, the sender of the message has the advantages of choosing the message and the medium, allocating the bandwidth of a message, setting the tone and rules of interaction and framing meaning. A more comprehensive model of communication process is still needed and Foulger (2004b) has attempted to create one with the ecological model of communication. The next section describes the Foulger model.

2.6   An Ecological Model Process

of the Communication

Communication models such as intermediary, interactive and transactional are found to be inadequate in explaining the dynamics of two-way communication. In these models, the receivers are assumed to automatically consume messages. However, the receivers usually have the choice to listen to or read what they want among the many potential messages that

2  MODELS OF COMMUNICATION PROCESS 

23

they receive. These models ignore noise, which is within the consumer of the messages, the impact of culture and the selective attention they have. A person’s self-perception, perceptions about others and relationship with the other communicator(s) can also affect the communication process in terms of the way messages are consumed and interpreted (“Communication in the real world,” 2013). This again has not been explored by the models mentioned above. In addition, language aspects such as spoken, written, and non-verbal languages are ignored in these models (Foulger, 2004a). Furthermore, the relationship between a medium and the language, message or the people taking the role of creating or consuming messages has also not been investigated. More than forty years after the 1960s, Foulger looked into the limitations of previous models as noted above and updated the communication model to fit in the evolution of communication and new media. His Ecological Model of the Communication Process, as shown in Fig. 2.6, has four essential constituents: messages, languages, media and people acting as creators or consumers of the message. This model shows that communication happens between creators and consumers through the mediation of messages which are composed using language within media, and then received through media and deciphered with the use of language.

become creators when they reply or provide feedback

Creators

imagine and create

Messages using

us

e, in ev ven ol t ve an

Languages within

d

Media

observe, attribute and interpret

liz ia c o , s in rn with a le

have perspectives of and relationships with Fig. 2.6  An ecological model of the communication process

Consumers e

Copyright, 2004, Davis foulger

24 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Foulger’s (2004a) Ecological Model of the Communication Process has given a comprehensive view of communication between human beings in the natural state and man-made information-loaded world (Jurin et al., 2010). This model shows that communication requires creators, consumers and their socially constructed messages. The movement of messages from creators to consumers involves language and media. As Foulger (2004a) has noted, languages and media evolve and thus specified skill is needed to use the evolved languages and media. Human beings must learn the target language and media so that they can create and understand these messages. In order words, one must know how to use the language and media for interaction purposes. The relationship between creators and consumers are “dynamic, cyclical and multifaceted as meanings are moulded, traded and reacted to” (Jurin et al., 2010, p. 18). Accompanying Foulger’s (2004a) Ecological Model of the Communication Process is a set of nine propositions which seeks to explain the interaction of fundamental and complex constituents that enable communication. The propositions are displayed in Table 2.1. Messages are the main focus of Foulger’s (2004a) Ecological Model of the Communication Process as they are the main product of the interaction among people, language and media. A message is complex. It is usually an incomplete part of a construction developed by the creator for consumers in a medium with language(s) that can be understood by them. In other words, messages are enabled by language and media. Overall, Foulger’s (2004a) Ecological Model of the Communication Process offers a good illustration of the communication process. The model aptly describes the communication process, with a focus on the media, language, messages and the people involved.

2.7   Summary Communication models have been created to explain the process and main components of communication. Beginning with the simplest model, communication models developed to become increasingly comprehensive. Foulger’s Ecological Model of Communication (2004) is one of the most comprehensive models, drawing the process of communication in detail and showing us that there are four essential constituents in communication: messages, languages, media and the people. These main components can influence the success of a communication and their relationships are

2  MODELS OF COMMUNICATION PROCESS 

25

Table 2.1  Propositions for the ecological model of the communication process (Foulger, 2004a)   1.  Proposition 1: All communication is mediated.   2.  Proposition 2: Communication is mediated by three separate but interrelated constructs: (1) the message, (2) the languages that the message is encoded in, and (3) the medium or media in which the encoded message is transmitted, stored, and/or processed.   3.  Proposition 3: When engaged in the process of communication, people act in two distinct roles: creator and consumer. The creation role is associated with the instantiation of representations of meaning. The consumption role is associated with the interpretation of representations of meaning. Each role has a different relationship to communication, even when both roles are concurrently associated with the same person.     Proposition 3.1:      Neither the act of creating a message nor the act of consuming a message necessarily ensure that communication (e.g. the interpretation of represented meaning) will occur. One can not communicate.   4.  Proposition 4: Communication is instantiated in messages.     Proposition 4.1: Communication is instantiated using languages and media.     Proposition 4.2: Messages are an approximation of the meaning a creator of              messages intends.     Proposition 4.3: Interpretation of the messages consumed from a medium is              approximate.   5.  Proposition 5: Messages are instantiated using language and media.     Proposition 5.1: Language shapes the possibilities associated with a              message.     Proposition 5.2: The medium shapes the possibilities associated with a              message.   6.  Proposition 6: People must learn language and media in order to be able to create and interpret messages.   7.  Proposition 7: People create (e.g. invent and evolve) languages and media.   8.  Proposition 8: Languages are instantiated using media. Every medium entails a set of possibilities for language that shapes what languages are used.   9.  Proposition 9: Consumption of messages allows consumers to form perceptions of and even establish (at least in their own minds) relationships with the creators of messages. Adapted from Foulger (2004a)

usually described to be “dynamic, cyclical and multifaceted as meanings are moulded, traded and reacted to” (Jurin et al., 2010, p. 18). The next chapter continues to explore the topic of communication, specifically computer-mediated communication—a relatively new way of communication that has gained wide popularity.

26 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

References Communication in the real world: An introduction to communication studies. (2013). University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. Retrieved from https:// open.lib.umn.edu/communication/front-­matter/publisher-­information/ Foulger, D. (2004a). An ecological model of the communication process. Retrieved from http://davis.foulger.info/papers/ecologicalModelOfCommunication.htm Foulger, D. (2004b). Models of the communication process. Retrieved from http:// davis.foulger.info/papers/ecologicalModelOfCommunication.htm Jurin, R.  R., Roush, D., & Danter, J. (2010). Environmental communication: Skills and principles for natural resource managers, scientists and engineers (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Katz, E. (1957). The Two-Step Flow of Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 61–78. Shannon, C.  E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/ j.1538-­7305.1948.tb01338.x Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.  G. Widdowson (pp.  125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Weiner, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Wiley. Weiner, N. (1986). Human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. Avon.

CHAPTER 3

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), which emerged in the 1960s and became popular in the 1990s, refers to communication that occurs between humans via computers or digital tools (Herring, 1996; Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2016). With a functioning digital tool, CMC can be available at any time and any place through instant messaging, emails, discussion forums, social media platforms, massive open online courses (MOOC), online distance learning (ODL) programs etc. It allows multidimensional communication such as one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many and even one alone (Nguyen, 2008). There are two types of computer-mediated communication—synchronous CMC and asynchronous CMC. Synchronous CMC refers to interaction which happens in real time with immediate exchange of messages. The common platforms for synchronous CMC include instant messaging applications such as WeChat, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Facebook messenger etc. Asynchronous CMC refers to interaction that is staggered over time as people send and respond to messages at different time using email or posts on a blog or social media. The focus of this book is on synchronous text-based CMC where users communicate by typing out their messages which are then read by others on computer screens immediately. Synchronous online discussions which are carried out in real time will be given more emphasis in this book since they are similar to and comparable with face-to-face (F2F) discussions in terms of spontaneity, speed and conversational styles (Herring, 1996). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_3

27

28 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Even though voice and video messages are increasingly common, there are still many learners who prefer text-based CMC compared to voice and video messages due to bandwidth issues and its wider usage (Smidt, McAndrew, & McDyre, 2017). Therefore, the focus and discussion of this book will largely be on text-based CMC. After understanding the importance of communication in elevating the standards of English language proficiency (Chap. 1) and the main components such as messages, languages, media and people in the models of communication process (Chap. 2), this chapter highlights the role of communication media in language classes. The communication media discussed in this book include CMC and (F2F) communication. For a better understanding of these media, their similarities and differences will be explored. After that, the relevant theories and models related to the effective usage of communication media are discussed.

3.1   CMC vs. F2F (Face-to-Face) Communication Based on Foulger’s (2004) Ecological Model of the Communication Process, medium plays a crucial role in influencing the construction of messages and ultimately, the communication process. One of the most obvious differences between synchronous online and F2F discussions is that the members in online discussions appear silent and busy typing on the keyboard while the participants in F2F discussions chatter away noisily and laugh (Chen & Wang, 2009). Other differences between CMC and F2F communications in terms of communications skills, language, collaboration, turn-taking, nonverbal cues are explained in the following subsections. 3.1.1  Communication Skills Different communication skills are involved in F2F and text-based online discussions. In F2F discussions, listening and speaking skills are most evident. In contrast, online text-based discussions are mainly dominated by typing skill as well as reading and writing skills when one communicates through a text-based platform. It is interesting to note that learners have always found writing difficult and “painful” yet they prefer online chat which requires them to write or type (Chew & Ng, 2021; Silvia, 2007).

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

29

3.1.2  Language Computer-mediated language was assumed to not differ from traditional written language, since they are both in the form of text with textual elements such as lines, punctuations, permanent record of exchanges and absence of paralinguistic features (Squires, 2016). However, to all intents and purposes, the language used in CMC is different from written language. According to Herring (1996), Crystal (2004), Danet (2001) and Barton and Lee (2013), the language used during CMC or online discussions should be described as a “new” variety of language as it showcases the following common features: • Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms (e.g. BTW for by the way; LOL for laugh out loud, OMG for Oh my God) • Word reductions (e.g. hv for have; nv for nevermind) • Emoticons (e.g. :D, :-p) • Letter/ number homophones (e.g. U2 for you too; b4 for before) • Special lexis (e.g. spamming, lag, photobomb) • Stylized spelling (e.g. I’m soooooo excited!, wassup) • Unconventional punctuation and capitalization (e.g. !!!!!!!, ????, i, thurs) • Onomatopoeia and words to represent laughter or actions (e.g. zzzzz, hehe, kakaka, shrug, sigh) The above characteristic features of CMC are given various names such as netspeak, electronic language, digital language, netlingo, interactive written discourse, chatspeak, textspeak, cyber language, e-language, internet slang, text chat etc. These terms describe the language used by online users as “a kind of semi-speech that is between talking and writing” (Lee, 2009, p. 128). Crystal (2004) also added that netspeak, or the language found in CMC, can be considered as a “third medium” which comprises speech, writing and electronically mediated features. The electronic language found in CMC is used deliberately to reduce typing effort and mirror the conversational style of F2F communication with creative expressions. Despite that, there is still a relatively small possibility that common features of e-language may be an indication of learners’ errors due to their carelessness or insufficient knowledge on the standard language forms (Herring, 2001).

30 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

The common features of computer-mediated language are typically found in synchronous online discussions (rather than asynchronous CMC) since they promote faster exchanges and more spontaneity (Lee, 2009; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002). In other words, synchronous online discussions are similar to F2F discussions in terms of pace, spontaneity and conversational style. In addition, the discourse produced in both online and F2F discussions show a variety of discourse markers, speech acts, negotiation strategies and many abbreviations, contractions and short single-lines messages with omissions of grammatical function words (Al-Shalchi, 2009; Lee, 2009; Yates, 2001; Yeo & Ting, 2017). Like spoken language, a word can also be emphasized in synchronous CMC. However, instead of saying the word louder and with higher pitch and amplitude, a word in CMC is emphasized through bolding, italicizing or capital letters (Danet, 2001; Yeo & Ting, 2017). Apart from that, the social context may also influence the use of language in both CMC and F2F contexts. Depending on whether one is talking to an authority figure or a friend, the level of formality, and thus the structural complexity and “standardness” of the language, differ. 3.1.3  Collaboration Generally, learners are found to perform significantly better in the online collaborative setting, although learners give more positive response to F2F collaboration mode, which offers more obvious visual cues (Guo, 2020; Sapp & Simon, 2005). In a virtual setting, learners may ask more questions and perform better in solving ill-structured problems than those who have done it face-to-face (Tutty & Klein, 2008). Learner–learner interactions also show a high degree of collaboration among peers in an online setting (Loewen & Wolff, 2016). This indicates that online discussions may benefit learners in providing group interaction, collaborative learning, speed and convenience. Peer support and collaboration are also promoted in the online setting while F2F discussions usually show the pattern of initiation–response– evaluation (Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Loewen & Wolff, 2016). In the study of Kamhi-Stein (2000), increased student contribution and diminished instructor’s participation are found in online discussions. Therefore, she suggests technology which effectively encourages collaboration among learners should be integrated in the teaching and learning process. Nonetheless, we should note that online collaboration imposes a higher

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

31

cognitive load on learners since they are required to learn how to utilize the online tool (Lan, Sheng, Hsu, & Shiue, 2019). Online discussions also have the potential to improve relationships between learners. In a qualitative study Powers and Mitchell (1997) found that the online environment can establish closer rapport among the learners of a web-based graduate course. This is because they have more time to ponder their replies and can remove sentences which are deemed aggressive, thereby avoiding unhappiness. However, Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1984) reported a different result in which participants in online discussions tend to be less inhibited but more aggressive and give more negative comments. Despite that, it is argued that online discussions can afford more equal opportunities for learners to share their opinions and they are usually less influenced or controlled by others. In other words, online discussion can provide a freer, more conducive and comfortable environment for balanced participation and the opportunity for all members to be heard (Chew & Ng, 2016; Vonderwall, Liang, & Alderman, 2007). This can benefit learners in subordinated positions, such as those who are shy, reticent, introverted, face language difficulties or dislike speaking in front of the other learners, because they can give themselves the chance to be heard when communicating through online discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021). 3.1.4  Turn-taking In both F2F and synchronous online discussions, participants need to be present at the same time. In a F2F setting, communicators will meet in the same physical space, while participants in online discussions need to log in to the same discussion page. As both types of discussions are held in a real time environment/ situation/ context, prompt feedback can be gathered. However, the process of exchanging ideas differs in both F2F and synchronous online discussions. In F2F discussions, communicators generally have to obey the “no gap, no overlap” rule (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). They have to wait for their turn to speak during the discussions. In contrast, the participants in online discussions do not need to take turns to respond. They can post their messages at any time. This causes messages to be ephemeral and regularly overlapped. The message receivers in CMC usually have to keep scrolling the screen for updates and sometimes they also need to scroll back due to incoherent interactions. To make themselves clear, participants in online discussions may also make use of

32 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

the channel’s attribute by quoting the sender’s specific message before giving feedback; as illustrated in Fig. 3.1. 3.1.5  Nonverbal Cues Text-based CMC does not have the advantage of nonverbal cues (eye contact, facial expressions, body gestures and etc.) and prosodic features (stress, intonation, accent etc.) as they can be found in F2F interactions (Lee, 2009; Yeo & Ting, 2017). Nonetheless, CMC users are able to adapt to the medium and express themselves by using textual representation of auditory information such as prosody, laughter and other non-­ language sounds. For instance: • Capital letters and exclamation marks can be used to stress a word: I said NO!!!! • Onomatopoeia can be used to represent laughter and non-language sounds: e.g. Wakaka (the Malaysian way of laughing) Apart from the examples above, participants in online discussions would also show their emotions through the use of emoticons such as or :-( The use of emoticons and textual representations of auditory information give visual clues to receivers but they might not display real human emotions (Yeo & Ting, 2017). Theories such as social presence theory, lack of social context cues hypothesis, as well as media richness theory aim to explain the effects of insufficient nonverbal cues in CMC.  Details of these theories are given in the following section.

Fig. 3.1  An example of the use of quotations in online discussion

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

33

3.2   CMC: The Early Theories Cues-filtered-out theories were used by Culnan and Markus (1987) to describe a group of theories that show CMC is lacking in nonverbal cues, which play a crucial role in social interactions. It includes theories such as social presence theory, the lack of social context cues hypothesis and media richness theory. 3.2.1  Social Presence Theory Social presence refers to the extent to which one senses the physical presence of other people in the communication process. Social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) claims that different communication media have different effectiveness in conveying social presence or nonverbal content on top of verbal messages. Nonverbal communication is deemed important, and the lack of socio-emotional content in CMC will show lack of involvement and warmth between the communicators. This theory argues that plain-text CMC has low social presence and is not as good as other media which can show nonverbal cues such as facial expressions, tone of voice etc. Despite that, plain-text email, Twitter tweet, forum discussions and text messaging are still often used as it is effective for task-focused communication (Short et al., 1976). On the other hand, communication media which has higher social presence (e.g. F2F communication) is believed to be more effective for relational communication and obtains higher satisfaction from the interlocutors (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Short et al., 1976). 3.2.2  Lack of Social Context Cues Hypothesis The lack of social context cues hypothesis (Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Mcguire, 1986) is similar to social presence theory; putting forward the idea that CMC is impersonal since it occludes nonverbal content. CMC users are usually self-focused and cannot accommodate others’ personality and individual characteristics. Since the other user’s demographic is not detected, CMC users have to interpret messages based on the text or their assumptions. Apart from that, CMC users are also found to adapt to the CMC context by changing their language to compensate for the absence of nonverbal cues (Walther, DeAndrea, & Tong, 2010).

34 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

3.2.3  Media Richness Theory Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) suggests that media which afford multimodality or various verbal and nonverbal cues are rich. The four dimensions that define media richness theory are as follows (Walther, 2011, p. 448): . the number of cue systems supported by a medium, 1 2. the immediacy of feedback provided by a medium, 3. the potential for natural language (compared with the more formal genres of memoranda, business letters or data printouts), 4. message personalization (i.e. the degree to which a message can be catered to a particular individual). Based on media richness theory, F2F communication is the richest medium because it supports various cues, allows simultaneous exchanges and quick response, uses natural language and personalizes messages. A rich medium is helpful in facilitating one’s understanding through the various cues which are available and is especially useful when one is working on a complex or equivocal task which needs clarifications (Calefato & Lanubile, 2010). In comparison, asynchronous text-based CMC does not look as effective as F2F communication since it is a lean medium that is ‘poorer’; based on the dimensions in media richness theory. Despite that, it is deemed to be a useful medium for obtaining additional information. 3.2.4  Cues-filtered-out Theories The cues-filtered-out theories (social presence theory, the lack of social context cues hypothesis and media richness theory) are developed in the 1970s and 1980s to convey the idea that communication is not as effective as F2F communication when the crucial element of nonverbal cues are absent. However, some of the models, theories and frameworks that are developed from the 1990s take a different view; as shown in the following section.

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

35

3.3   CMC: Current Theories and Models 3.3.1  Common Ground Theory The common ground theory of Clark and Brennan (1991) suggests that communication will be more effective when the interlocutors have established more common ground. The common ground here refers to the information or understanding shared by both the sender and receiver(s). With the establishment of more common ground or shared experiences, communication can be easier and more productive even though a medium is lean and lacks nonverbal cues (e.g. email). The common ground theory also emphasizes the importance of grounding. Grounding requires the interlocutors not to simply send each other messages. They are also required to achieve mutual understanding using grounding techniques such as nodding, answering “OK,” asking tag questions etc. (Calefato & Lanubile, 2010). The grounding techniques that are used in a communication rely on the selected medium. In a text-­ based setting where nonverbal cues are absent, one would need to type “no” instead of shaking one’s head. According to Clark and Brennan (1991), the following features of a medium can affect the grounding process: 1. Copresence: The interlocutors need to be physically present at the same place/platform at the same time. This attribute is only applicable to F2F communication. 2. Visibility: The interlocutors can see each other. 3. Audibility: The interlocutors can hear each other. 4. Synchronicity: The interlocutors can send and receive messages at the same time. 5. Simultaneity: The interlocutors can send and receive messages at once or simultaneously. This attribute is closely linked to synchronicity. 6. Sequentiality: The interlocutors can exchange messages in regular succession with no gaps. 7. Reviewability/ Reprocessability: The sender can review or check his or her messages before sending them out. 8. Revisability/ Rehearseability/ Editability: The sender can edit his or her messages before sending them out.

36 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

In a rich medium such as F2F communication, the participants can form common ground quickly. Therefore, it is highly recommended for groups which have just been formed and do not share much similar experience (Calefato & Lanubile, 2010). On the other hand, lean media such as email and letters are more suitable for groups with previous collaboration experience since they would have achieved more common ground. However, it is important to note that common ground is something subjective and it may change based on circumstances. 3.3.2  Media Synchronicity Theory Social presence and media richness theories claim that F2F communication which is the richest medium is the gold standard. However, the richness of a medium is not sufficient to justify its use. Consideration should also be made based on the task, the individuals and the social context (Dennis & Valacich, 1999). Media synchronicity theory by Dennis and Valacich (1999) suggests that different media possess different affordances which could influence group communication through two fundamental processes: 1. Conveyance: information exchange followed by negotiation of meaning. Participants need not pay attention to the same message at the same time and do not need to agree. Conveyance usually generates information which requires deliberation and this makes reprocessability important. 2. Convergence: the development of shared understanding whereby the interlocutors must agree. There are five dimensions which should guide the selection of the most suitable medium: 1. Symbol variety: This refers to the various ways messages can be communicated using symbols and cues. Depending on the task, conveyance would usually need more complex symbol set while convergence needs less symbol variety since it mainly requires one to understand others’ interpretations. 2. Parallelism: This refers to the number of exchanges that can occur simultaneously. For instance, telephone has low parallelism as it only enables one conversation at a time. Low parallelism is beneficial for

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

37

convergence as the interlocutors can focus on the topic and form shared understanding. On the other hand, an electronic medium allows a few conversations to occur at the same time. The high parallelism in electronic media allows a better understanding of others’ viewpoints as all members in a large group can express their views (conveyance). 3. Immediacy of feedback: The ability of the medium to allow interlocutors to give and receive feedback. More immediate feedback enables clarifications or corrections to be made quickly, and this can improve understanding. . Rehearseability: This feature is similar to “revisability” of the com4 mon ground theory. It is important for improved understanding of complex messages. . Reprocessability: This feature is similar to “reviewability” of the 5 common ground theory. A medium with higher reprocessability enables interlocutors to process messages over and over again to obtain an accurate understanding, thus fostering conveyance. Media such as face-to-face and videoconference which support low parallelism and high immediacy of feedback promote high synchronicity and this is important for convergence. On the other hand, media like email and chat which support high parallelism and low immediacy of feedback offer low synchronicity and this is important for conveyance. Groups which have established shared understanding need less convergence or less use of high-synchronicity media. In contrast, groups which are newly formed usually need some time to establish norms and understanding. In accordance with media synchronicity theory, Choi, Zeff, and Higby (2019) found that students are more satisfied with the use of F2F communication at the beginning of a project and the use of CMC in the middle of the project, after shared understanding and trust are developed. In essence, most of the communication tasks need individuals to “convey information and converge on shared meanings” (Calefato & Lanubile, 2010, p. 296). Therefore, media with high synchronicity and high social presence will be beneficial in enabling complex communication processes which involve both conveyance and convergence. However, there is no one medium that could do both (conveyance and convergence) well at one time. Therefore, selection of just one medium for a task may be less effective. Choosing a set of media to be used at different periods depending on the needs of the task (to convey or to converge) is recommended.

38 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

3.3.3  Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory The social information processing (SIP) theory of CMC (Walther & Burgoon, 1992) is often used to inform the differences between CMC and F2F communication. One of the main differences between the two media is that CMC lacks nonverbal communication cues. However, this theory differs from others who argue that the deficiency of nonverbal cues hinder interpersonal relationships and this causes CMC to be impersonal. SIP theory argues that communicators are motivated to develop interpersonal relationships regardless of the medium. In CMC context, when nonverbal cues are absent, communicators adapt to the situation by using a more explicit language content, certain style characteristics and emoticons. The other main difference between CMC and F2F is the response rate. CMC would usually require users to spend more time (compared to F2F communication) to build impressions or relationships. 3.3.4  Hyperpersonal Model of CMC The hyperpersonal model of CMC (Walther, 1996) explains the way CMC could affect communication due to the following components: 1. Influence of receivers’ interpretations • CMC users tend to exaggerate views of messages or senders in the absence of nonverbal cues. Receivers usually idealize the sender if the initial signs are pleasant. 2. Effects among message senders • Text-based CMC users can select the way they are presented by sending selective cues. 3. Features of the channel • CMC is a medium that can influence the production of online messages through its interface mechanics. 4. Feedback effects • Messages enhanced by receivers’ idealization, senders’ selective self-presentation and channel effects caused CMC users to

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

39

respond by reinforcing the partly modified character with some degree of exaggeration. In other words, “feedback may intensify the hyperpersonal effects of idealization, selective self-­presentation, and channel exploitation” (Walther, 2011, p. 473). CMC, especially synchronous text-based ones, are suitable to people who lack confidence and social skills in F2F communication. This is because CMC can lower their anxiety by enabling them to control their self-presentation through constructing messages carefully. In other words, CMC users can exploit the feature of the CMC channel by taking time to compose messages carefully and take advantage of its functions such as editing, deleting and rewriting messages. Apart from that, CMC users can focus on the construction of messages solely, without the need to attend to the nonverbal cues of the receiver in F2F communication. The online setting thus becomes a safer and more comfortable space for them to interact when compared to traditional F2F communication. 3.3.5  Efficiency Framework Nowak, Watt, and Walther (2005, 2009) developed the efficiency framework after referring to previous studies that had found that CMC users rated relatively low on interpersonal satisfaction when compared to F2F or video communication. Nonetheless, no detrimental effects were found on the achievement of tasks carried out through CMC. Nowak et al. (2009) claimed that people prefer doing tasks that use less effort such as F2F communication rather than CMC. Less effort is needed in F2F communication since it is spontaneous and exchanges can occur quickly through various modalities. Similarly, synchronous CMC is more positively rated than asynchronous CMC. 3.3.6  ICT Succession Model The ICT succession framework (Stephens, 2007) presents the following propositions based on principles and findings from a range of different literature: • Successive vs. single message transmissions: A sender may pass a message once or more. • Complementary vs. singular channel usage.

40 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

The main proposition of this model is that a message is most effectively conveyed (for particular tasks) when it goes through two different kinds of communication media. For instance, a message which has been sent face-­ to-­face and later on through email again is more effective than just oral or textual message only. Communication channels are grouped into categories such as F2F, oral media, textual media or mass media.

3.4   Implications from CMC Theories and Models Generally, early CMC theories such as media richness theory and cues-­ filtered-­out theory which were developed in the 1970s and 1980s undermined CMC due to its insufficient paralinguistic cues. However, recently-developed CMC theories such as common ground theory, media synchronicity theory, social information processing theory and hyperpersonal model of CMC which emerged in the 1990s proposed a better understanding of CMC and the ways communicators can utilize CMC settings for effective group communication. In fact, some research has found that the online setting may even be a safer and more comfortable space for communicators as it can lower anxiety levels by allowing communicators to compose messages carefully (Chew & Ng, 2016; Fitze, 2006; Warschauer, 1996). This suggests that CMC may be a good platform for learners to practice their communication skills. For a message to be effectively conveyed, ICT succession model proposes that a message should go through two different kinds of media. In the language-learning context, learners are recommended to practice communicating in online setting where they may feel more comfortable and then move on to presenting their ideas in a F2F environment. The following section further explains the potential of CMC in language learning.

3.5   The Potential of CMC in a Language Class In this digital era, learners can now use the Internet to voice their thoughts through discussions that can be held online; whether synchronous or asynchronous and text-based, voice-based or video-based. Online discussions are usually held found in chat rooms, online forums, emails, social networking sites and other websites or devices which allow users to discuss topic(s) through computer networking (Chen & Liu, 2020; Wang & Woo, 2007).

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

41

In the context of second language acquisition, CMC plays a vital role in promoting a high-level interaction (Ing, Yahaya, Laxman, & Al-Rahmi, 2020). CMC is thus believed to be able to fulfil the principles of communicative language teaching by providing more communicative practices with the use of technology (Dos Santos, 2020; Mathew, 2020; Saaed & Mohammed, 2020). In addition, CMC also fits into the criteria of communicative computer-assisted language learning (CALL) since it is flexible, uses natural target language, involves no evaluation but authentic and meaningful communication and induces implicit learning of grammar as well as focuses on acquisition rather than formal learning practices (Dos Santos, 2020). The other benefits of CMC are as follows: 3.5.1  Rich Social Contexts The communication produced in an online discussion forum can also facilitate learners’ acquisition of a second language through the development of relationships with other members of society and participation in real social contexts (Loewen & Wolff, 2016). Apart from that, learners can also learn to identify and resolve problems related to their studies and work by participating in topic-oriented discussion forums. This can stimulate learners to acquire the linguistic and communicative skills needed for specific purposes and for related contents (Bekar & Christiansen, 2018). According to Lo and Lin (2019), language learners are able to learn a language better when there is an integration of some content knowledge or current issues. In addition, learners can develop their pragmatics through online discussion forums by reading and observing the online pragmatics conventions used by other participants such as chat language, greeting styles, presenting oneself and taking leave (Samu, Santucci, & Sbardella, 2019; Whitworth, 2009). This can help learners to feel more comfortable with their use of a second language (Whitworth, 2009). 3.5.2  Previous Postings as Examples and References The interactions in an online environment occur in writing and can be saved automatically. This yields a permanent record and allows learners to look back at the conversations at their leisure for as many times as they wish (Al-Mutairy & Shukri, 2017). This encourages learners to reflect and draft their messages (Castañeda, 2019).

42 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Since online discussion forums are often archived and ordered by date, learners can also read previous postings, and this may give them ideas for appropriate contributions (Tang, Xing, & Pei, 2018). Referring to previous postings is important for learners who have less experience in online discussion forums as the context enables them to become more familiar with rules and regulations thus avoiding insults, attacks or reprimands (Whitworth, 2009). With the use of online discussion forums, language instructors are able to help learners to be more independent and assertive in their language learning process (Samu et al., 2019; Whitworth, 2009). However, both language instructors and learners need to observe the rules in online discussion forums to create a supportive and motivating environment there (Onyema, Deborah, Alsayed, Noorulhasan, & Sanober, 2019). 3.5.3  Self-paced and Visual Saliency CMC does not require participants to take turns to send their messages across. Instead, multiple threads can run concurrently and thus the order of messages may not follow the sequence of the interaction as is the case in F2F communication (Bekar & Christiansen, 2018; Yates, 2001). ESL researchers have found that the self-paced setting and visual salience of written discourse in online discussions are able to enhance learners’ chances to notice their errors and modify their output (e.g. Bekar & Christiansen, 2018; Lai & Zhao, 2006; Mirasol-Rivera, 2017; Onyema et al., 2019; Salomonsson, 2020; Smith, 2008). This is because ESL learners have more time to ponder on recorded previous messages and their own productions before sending their responses online (Lee, 2009; Lever-­ Duffy & McDonald, 2011; Mirasol-Rivera, 2017). This not only reduces the fear of failure among second-language learners but can also encourage more successful uptake in language-related episodes, which could lead to subsequent learning of the target language (Loewen & Wolff, 2016; Salomonsson, 2020). The users could also think critically and pursue knowledge more independently (Onyema et al., 2019; Ware, 2004). 3.5.4  Less Threatening Since an immediate response is not anticipated, CMC is deemed to be less threatening compared to F2F interaction (Chew & Ng, 2021; Warschauer, 1998). Hence, risk-taking is more easily fostered in CMC and users are

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

43

found to be more active in sharing their views, knowledge and experiences to support each other, construct new understanding and form relationships (Chew & Ng, 2021; Kamhi-Stein, 2000). This creates a positive environment for learner–learner interactions and cooperative learning (Fowler & Wheeler, 1995; Loewen & Wolff, 2016). In accordance with Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996), a dynamic student-centered discussion can aid language learning (Chew & Ng, 2016; Darhower, 2002). Thus, it is not surprising that learners’ written and oral skills have improved in the online setting (Al Jahrami, 2019; Abrams, 2003; Kitade, 2000; Payne & Whitney, 2002; Pham, 2019) and the same goes for learners’ grammatical competence (Al Jahrami, 2019; Lee, 2009). 3.5.5  Obscured Names & Extra-linguistic Cues The online environment enables the obscuring of names, aural and visual paralinguistic cues. Thus, it is hard for one to be certain of interlocutors’ gender, ethnic, class, personality or mood. Cues-filtered-out theories hypothesize that this feature, found in text-based CMC, is impersonal and unsuitable for interpersonal relationships, but more suitable for information transfer. However, more recent theories such as social information processing theory and the hyperpersonal model of CMC claim that reduced extra-­ linguistic cues would not be a problem to users who adapt themselves to this feature of CMC. In fact, language learners who communicate through computer-mediated settings are found to be more active in sharing their views, knowledge and experiences to support each other (Chew & Ng, 2021; Kamhi-Stein, 2000). They can even construct new understanding and form relationships in a better way when barriers such as accent, appearance and other visual and aural paralinguistic cues are eliminated. In other words, language learners interact more when they discover that they are judged by their communicative skills and not their ethnic or native language, as may occur in F2F discussions. Despite the potential advantages such as decreased inhibition and more self-disclosure among language learners, facilitators of learning need to take note of the potential downsides of online discussions such as the higher tendency to express hostility to others.

44 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

3.5.6  More Equal Participation among Learners With a lack of extra-linguistic cues, CMC users are free from prejudices formed due to accent, looks, gestures, gender, social status, etc. They can be judged by what they say and not who they are. Therefore, a more balanced participation among users can be enhanced in the self-paced and less threatening computer-mediated environment (Chew & Ng, 2016; Berge & Collins, 1995). Moreover, students can respond at the same time in an online setting, unlike F2F discussions which require turn-taking (Al-Mutairy & Shukri, 2017; Loewen & Wolff, 2016). This helps to increase the level of participation among non-native English speakers and equalize the opportunity for participation among class members. Apart from that, people with disabilities, speech impediments, physical impairment or disfigurement can also be better empowered in CMC than the F2F environment, which hampers equal participation (Berge & Collins, 1995). 3.5.7  More Exposure to the Target Language Since CMC does not require communicators to meet at the same place and time, it can allow learners to have more opportunities to meet with the interlocutors online and form friendships that may develop learners’ communicative competence and cultural awareness (Babni, 2019; Whitworth, 2009). This helps learners to engage further and deeper with the target language and their conversation partners. Apart from that, the participants of online discussions can also contribute as much as they would like to. The computer-mediated environment allows greater incorporation of participants’ comments and thus more interactions can occur in online discussions than in traditional F2F discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021; Maurino, 2006).

3.6   Summary Blended learning is the way to go for Generations Y and Z students. (Rozinah, 2018)

To improve command of the English language among Generation Y and Z students, who are generally more Internet savvy and less receptive to taking down notes from the blackboard, teachers are urged to keep abreast of recent developments and utilize technological teaching tools.

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

45

The emphasis on learning with technology has prompted researchers to seek the appropriate role for new technology (Chapelle & Sauro, 2017). CMC is believed to be beneficial for English as second language (ESL) learners if it is well-designed (Kern et al., 2016). It has been widely used to assist instructions in class and has promoted “paradigmatic shifts in teaching and learning” in which traditional instructor-centered education is converted to learner-centered learning and classes can utilize a wider range of interactive methodologies (Berge & Collins, 1995, p.2). This can improve the quality, quantity and communication styles of ESL learners (Berge & Collins, 1995). Teachers who have incorporated the use of CMC in K-12 classrooms have found that CMC can bring excitement and solid learning experiences to learners, especially when they can connect with others around the world (Bekar & Christiansen, 2018; Fowler & Wheeler, 1995). In addition, many teachers found their students to be more cooperative and their social interaction improved when group activities are carried out using CMC.  ESL learners have shown a positive attitude towards the use of online discussion forums for learning purposes (Chew & Ng, 2021). Compared to F2F discussions, online discussions are also found to be more task-oriented and focused on the topic rather than trivial matters (Choi et al., 2019; Walther, 1996). Even though the value of CMC or online discussion as an important tool for learning English language is undeniable, its use must be carefully controlled as it can be addictive or interfere with F2F contacts (Bekar & Christiansen, 2018; Berge & Collins, 1995). In addition, there are a few studies which find that the users of CMC showed less satisfaction in discussions held in CMC environments than in F2F environments (Choi et al., 2019; Simon, 2006). With the popularity of the Internet in this century, online discussions have become crucial and so demand serious study and pedagogical attention (Bekar & Christiansen, 2018; Mathew, 2020). Therefore, prudent evaluation of the use of CMC in second-language learning is crucial for more effective use of it in ESL classes. Moreover, language classes consist of learners who have different personalities, levels of language proficiency and other individual differences. The next chapter will explore the influence of learners’ individual differences on their discourse and participation styles in group discussions carried out in different settings, i.e. CMC or F2F.

46 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

References Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167. Al Jahrami, D. (2019). The impact of online discussions on the accuracy of the written output of Bahraini L2 university students. In S.  Hidri (Ed.), English Language Teaching research in the Middle East and North Africa. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­98533-­6_28 Al-Mutairy, M., & Shukri, N. (2017). Patterns of interactions in a Synchronous Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) collaborative activity in the Saudi EFL context. Studies in English Language Teaching, 5(2), 307–322. Al-Shalchi, O.  N. (2009). The effectiveness and development of online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1) Retrieved from http:// jolt.merlot.org/vol5no1/al-­shalchi_0309.html Babni, A. (2019). Computer-mediated communication and language education: Focus on written communication. i-Manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 9(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.9.1.14781 Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/33706697/ David_Barton_Carmen_Lee_Language_Online_pdf Bekar, M., & Christiansen, M. S. (2018). Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). In J.  I. Liontas, T.  International Association, & M.  DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235 Berge, Z. L., & Collins, M. P. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives. New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc. Calefato, F., & Lanubile, F. (2010). Communication media selection for remote interaction of ad hoc groups. Advances in Computers: Improving the Web, 271–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-­2458(10)78006-­2 Castañeda, D. A. (2019). Improving conversational interactions with task-based activities in a Spanish as a second language class. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1666149 Chapelle, C. A., & Sauro, S. (2017). Introduction to the Handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning. In C.  A. Chapelle & S.  Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp.  1–9). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118914069 Chen, F.-C., & Wang, T. C. (2009). Social conversation and effective discussion in online group learning. Education Communications and Technology, 57, 587–612. Chen, L.-T., & Liu, L. (2020). Social presence in multidimensional online discussion: The roles of group size and requirements for discussions. Computers in the Schools, 37(2), 116–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1756648

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

47

Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2016). The relevance of personality and language proficiency on the participation style of ESL learners in face-to-face and online discussions. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 605–613. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40299-­016-­0288-­z Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). Personality and language proficiency on ESL learners’ word contributions in face-to-face and synchronous online forums. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.24200/ jonus.vol6iss1pp199-­221 Choi, W., Zeff, L. E., & Higby, M. A. (2019). Digital natives in China and the United States: Is technology effective in building trust? Quarterly Review of Business Disciplines, 6(2), 133–150. Clark, H.  H., & Brennan, S.  E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.  B. Resnick, J.  M. Levine, & S.  D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: APA Books. Crystal, D. (2004). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L.  L. Putnam, K.  H. Robert, & L.  W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organisational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420–443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 Danet, B. (2001). Cyberpl@y: Communicating online. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Darhower, M. (2002). Instructional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19, 249–277. Dennis, A.  R., & Valacich, J.  S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/ hicss.1999.772701 Dos Santos, L. M. (2020). The discussion of communicative language teaching approach in language classrooms. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(2), 104–109. Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67–86. Foulger, D. (2004). An ecological model of the communication process. Retrieved from http://davis.foulger.info/papers/ecologicalModelOfCommunication.htm Fowler, L.  S., & Wheeler, D.  D. (1995). Online from the k-12 classroom. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom: Overview and perspectives (pp. 83–100). New Jersey: Hampton Press Inc.

48 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. Guo, S. (2020). Task design to enhance learners’ collaboration and engagement in an online Chinese learning environment. In W. W. Ma, K. Tong, & W. B. A. Tso (Eds.), Learning environment and design (Educational Communications and Technology Yearbook) (pp.  159–174). Singapore: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­981-­15-­8167-­0_10 Herring, S.  C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H.  Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.  612–634). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Retrieved from http://ella.slis.indiana. edu/~herring/cmd.pdf Ing, H. C., Yahaya, N., Laxman, K., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2020). Examining learners’ interaction pattern in asynchronous text-based online learning. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(4), 9–19. Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 423–455. Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Computer-mediated communication and language learning. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English Language Teaching (Chap.  38). London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315676203 Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-­mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 146–166. Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num2/ laizhao/default.html Lan, C-H., Sheng, M-H., Hsu, Y-C., & Shiue, Y-M. (2019). Influence of online and face-to-face collaboration and learning style on cognitive load and engagement in a healthy introductory course. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics 2019 (pp. 142–148). https:// doi.org/10.1145/3340037.3340069 Lee, L. (2009). Exploring native and non-native interactive discourse in text-based chat beyond classroom settings. In L.  B. Abraham & L.  Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp. 11–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

49

Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. B. (2011). Teaching and learning with technology (4th ed.). MA: Pearson. Lo, Y. Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Content and language integrated learning in Hong Kong. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English Language Teaching. Cham: Springer International Handbooks of Education, Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­02899-­2_50 Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.  163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mathew, D. I. R. (2020). Learner centered e-interactions: An exploration of context and practicality that influences e-learning experience. International Journal on E-Learning, 19(3), 229–241. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https:// www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/207622/. Maurino, P. (2006). Participation and online interaction: F2F vs. online. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(4), 257–266. Mirasol-Rivera, I. (2017). Language learning experiences of ESL students engaged in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). Abstract Proceedings International Scholars Conference, 5(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.35974/ isc.v5i1.1556 Nguyen, L. V. (2008). Computer mediated communication and foreign language education: Pedagogical features. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 5(12), 23–44. Nowak, K., Watt, J.  H., & Walther, J. (2005). The influence of synchrony and sensory modality on the person perception process in computer mediated groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3) Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/nowak.html Nowak, K., Watt, J. H., & Walther, J. B. (2009). Computer mediated teamwork and the efficiency framework: Exploring the influence of synchrony and cues on media satisfaction and outcome success. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1108–1119. Onyema, E. M., Deborah, E. C., Alsayed, A. O., Noorulhasan, Q., & Sanober, S. (2019). Online discussion forum as a tool for interactive learning and communication. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(4), 4852–4859. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.d8062.118419 Payne, S., & Whitney, R. (2002). Developing L2 proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32. Pham, A. T. D. (2019). Quantitative analysis of the effect of synchronous online discussions on oral and written language development for EFL university stu-

50 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

dents in Vietnam. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 128(6B) Retrieved from http://jos.hueuni.edu.vn/index.php/HUJOS-­SSH/article/view/4880 Powers, S. & Mitchell, J. (1997). Student perceptions and performance in a virtual classroom environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Rozinah Jamaludin. (2018, June 11). Using technology in the classroom can transform learning. News Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com. my/opinion/letters/2018/06/378673/using-­t echnology-­c lassroom­can-­transform-­learning. Saaed, S., & Mohammed, A. (2020). The effect of using discussion boards on EFL writing classes: An action research case study. Academic Journal of Nawroz University, 9(3), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.25007/ajnu.v9n3a773 Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. https:// doi.org/10.2307/412243 Salomonsson, J. (2020). Modified output and learner uptake in casual online learner-learner conversation. System, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2020.102306 Samu, B., Santucci, V., & Sbardella, T. (2019). Technologies for teaching and learning intercultural competence and interlanguage pragmatics in L2 Italian. Experiences of implementing an online language course on Moodle platform. Conference Proceedings. Innovation in Language Learning. International Conference. 12th International Conference. https://doi.org/10.26352/ DY14_2384-­9509 Sapp, D.  A., & Simon, J. (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing courses: Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers and Composition, 22, 471–489. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0749-­5978(86)90050-­6. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X19305482 Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Simon, A. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: Task performance and satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 349–380. Smidt, E., McAndrew, A., & McDyre, B. (2017). Synchronous video chat sessions in a TESOL online graduate course: Instructor roles and best practices. In I. Sanz-Sánchez, S. V. Rivera-Mills, & R. Morin (Eds.), Online language teach-

3  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) 

51

ing research: Pedagogical, academic and institutional issues (pp.  79–99). Corvallis: Trysting Tree Books. https://doi.org/10.5399/osu.ubi1.e Smith, D. B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 85–103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/smith/default.html Squires, L. (2016). Computer-mediated communication and the English writing system. In V. Cook & D. Ryan (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the English writing system. London: Routledge. Stephens, K.  K. (2007). The successive use of information and communication technologies at work. Communication Theory, 17(4), 486–507. Tang, H., Xing, W., & Pei, B. (2018). Exploring the temporal dimension of forum participation in MOOCs. Distance Education, 39(3), 353–372. https://doi. org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476841 Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82–99. Retrieved from http://lly.msu.edu/vol6num1/toyoda/ Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib. org/p/67664/ Vonderwall, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309–328. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443–479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-­ mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88. Walther, J. B., DeAndrea, D. C., & Tong, S. T. (2010). Computer-mediated communication versus vocal communication and the attenuation of pre-interaction impressions. Media Psychology, 13(4), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15213269.2010.524913 Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451–468. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing Face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.

52 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Warschauer, M. (1998). Interaction, negotiation, and computer-mediated learning. In V. Darleguy, A. Ding, & M. Svensson (Eds.), Educational technology in language learning: Theoretical considerations and practical (pp.  125–136). Lyon, France: National Institute of Applied Sciences. Whitworth, K. F. (2009). The discussion forum as a locus for developing L2 pragmatic awareness. In L. B. Abraham & L. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp.  11–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Yates, S. J. (2001). Researching internet interaction: Sociolinguistics and corpus analysis. In M.  Wetherell, S.  Taylor, & S.  J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data (pp. 93–146). London: Sage. Yeo, D., & Ting, S. (2017). Netspeak features in Facebook communication of Malaysian university students. Journal of Advanced Research in Social and Behavioural Sciences, 6(1), 81–90.

CHAPTER 4

CMC vs. F2F: Discourse and Participation Styles of Different Language Learners

People are unique and have different preferences depending on their characteristics, gender, motivation, aptitude, learning style, proficiency in the target language etc. (Chew & Ng, 2021; Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Shehni & Khezrab, 2020). Since each learner is special and has his or her own learning approaches, we need to understand learners’ individual differences in accomplishing a certain task or goal and identify the facilities or environments that would enable them to learn and use the target language in different contexts more effectively. Recognizing that both face-to-face (F2F)and online discussions are crucial in the modern world, we need to be aware of the particular affordances that could be supported in CMC or F2F environments with attention paid to individuals’ differences. This chapter will begin with a focus on learners’ individual differences and then will look into how learners with different personalities and levels of language proficiency behave in different discussion settings. Lastly, the lexical complexity and interactive competence displayed by different language learners in F2F and online discussions are discussed.

4.1   Individual Differences As a certain discussion setting may be favorable to a certain group of learners but not for others, it is important for language instructors to cater to learners’ individual differences for more effective teaching and learning. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_4

53

54 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

The individual differences that this book focuses on are the common variables often found in a language class: learners’ personality and language proficiency. Specifically, language proficiency refers to the more proficient and less proficient learners while personality refers to humans’ individual differences in their typical way of thinking, feeling and behaving (Kazdin, 2000; Walker, 2020). Personality can affect the way one communicates, the way one receives and processes information and the way one prefers to deal with others (Walker, 2020; Jurin, Roush, & Danter, 2010). To identify your personality type, you can try Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, 2003), Style Analysis Survey (Oxford, 1993), Five Factor Model (McCrae & Costa, 1989) or Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). In the personality aspect of language studies, extroversion and introversion are two main types of personalities which have received most attention (Dörnyei, 2005). They are also believed to be generally stable but can change over time or following a major life event (Tohver, 2020). The definition and characteristics of learners who display extroversion and introversion are as follows: Extroverts “Extrovert” refers to learners who focus on the outer world and have more interest in socializing with a wide range of people and events as well as a preference for interactive learning activities (Opt & Loffredo, 2000; Oxford, 1993). Extroverted learners typically show traits such as:

- thriving on small talk, - thinking as they speak, - making new friends easily, - being more energetic around people, - being interested in and concerned with the outer world, - being quite blunt—saying whatever they are thinking, - easily assimilating themselves in a new group, - loving to socialize, chat and attend social gatherings. (Naik, 2010; Walker, 2020)

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

55

Introverts “Introvert” refers to students who focus on the inner world and tend to avoid social contacts with unfamiliar people and prefer more independent learning activities (Opt & Loffredo, 2000; Oxford, 1993). They typically display traits such as:

- abhorring small talk and not being enthusiastic to speak, - needing time to process information, thinking before they speak, - being more energetic when alone, - feeling nervous or anxious in a crowded place, - appearing to be quiet, deliberate and deep in reflection, -  being more reserved, having fewer friends and disliking unexpected visitors, - enjoying introspection, problem solving, and complex thinking, - needing time to process information, - loving solitary activities like reading, writing, painting and daydreaming. (Naik, 2010; Walker, 2020) Sometimes, learners exhibit characteristics of both extroversion and introversion. They are categorized as ambivert and sometimes described as outgoing introverts, social introverts or antisocial extroverts. Ambiverts can change their behaviors according to the context, objective and mood. For instance, introverts are expected to be less socially active but an ambivert would be sociable with certain people in a particular situation if he or she really needs to (Taylor, 2020). In other words, ambiverts are flexible and good at adapting themselves to different contexts (Taylor, 2020). They could easily work on their own or work with others in large groups. Personality could influence a learner’s language-learning process in the way he or she thinks, decides, acts and behaves (Shehni & Khezrab, 2020). For example, a more outspoken and sociable extrovert may learn a language more easily since they are more sociable, adventurous, assertive and less perturbed about making mistakes (Kow, 2012; Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Shehni & Khezrab, 2020). On the contrary, the introverts are argued to be less suited to language-learning due to their inhibitions, which discourage them from taking risks in experiencing with the target language, hence affecting their language-learning process (Kow, 2012; Shehni & Khezrab, 2020). Despite that, Daele (2005) believed that introverts are better academic learners since they have better mental concentration, retention and capacity in processing.

56 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Besides personality, a learner’s language proficiency can also influence his or her language-learning process. Learners with a high level of language proficiency usually have higher language aptitude and utilize more language-learning and metacognitive strategies to fill in communication gaps and equip themselves with the necessary language knowledge (Ting, Soekarno, & Lee, 2017). Apart from that, the more proficient language-­ learner is also more dominant, confident and motivated to use the target language compared to a less proficient learner, who usually suffers significantly higher level of language anxiety (Chew & Ng, 2021; Zaid, Zakaria, Rashid, & Ismail, 2016). According to Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis (1981), a learner who has lower level of language anxiety will be more receptive to comprehensible input and more successful. Since language proficiency and language anxiety are negatively correlated, this suggests that the level of learner’s language proficiency can impact their performance and learning process in a discussion. In other words, personality and language proficiency can affect the quality of communication and should be taken into account in the design of a conducive ESL learning environment. The following section further explores the influence of learners’ personality and language proficiency on their participation styles when they are having large group discussions in two different environments—F2F and synchronous online text-based discussion.

4.2   Participation Styles Successful speakers are willing to talk. (Dickinson, 1987, p. 129)

Since successful speakers are more willing to talk, language learners should be encouraged to communicate. This is also in line with Swain’s output hypothesis (1995) and Long’s interaction hypothesis (1996) which argue that production of output during interactions can help learners to be better in the target language. In traditional classes where F2F discussions are often held, not every member has the chance to respond as the linear F2F discussions only allow one speaker to contribute at a time (Benson, 2003; Dendy, 2019). In contrast, all learners can have the opportunity to answer in open-access online text-based discussions and they can voice their ideas at the same time (Chew & Ng, 2016; Lapadat, 2002). Learner–learner interactions in online group discussions allow a high degree of collaboration among peers (Loewen & Wolff, 2016). Moreover, learners can contribute as much as

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

57

they would like to in the provided timeframe, which this allows a greater incorporation of participants’ comments (Chew & Ng, 2016; Lapadat, 2002). More interactions can occur in online text-based discussions than in traditional F2F discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021; Maurino, 2006). Non-­ native speakers are also found to be more active when discussing with native speakers in an online environment, when they find themselves judged by their communicative skills rather than their ethnicity or native language as is often the case in F2F discussions (Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Marjanovic, 1999). The online environment enables their names and aural and visual paralinguistic cues to be obscured. This helps to increase the level of participation among non-native English speakers and equalize the opportunity for participation among class members. The following section looks into the participation styles of a group of learners who have different personalities when they take part in F2F and synchronous text-based online discussions. 4.2.1  Participation Styles of Learners with Different Personalities In online discussions where there are no native speakers, a more balanced participation is observed as participation becomes more equally distributed in contrast to the F2F discussions, which are usually dominated by a few students, especially extroverts with higher level of language proficiency (e.g. Chew & Ng, 2016; Fitze, 2006; Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Warschauer, 1996). In other words, online discussions are found to encourage more active participation in large group discussions among all types of users irrespective of their personality and language proficiency. In fact, learners who are usually shy or introverted in nature are more active in using the target language and experiment with the use of new language forms in online text-based discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021; Whitworth, 2009). This is because they can take their time to respond and the consequences of face-threatening acts are drastically reduced in an online environment discussion (Chew & Ng, 2021; Whitworth, 2009). Furthermore, there is no need for turn-taking as the learner does not need to wait for the other person to finish writing before composing his or her messages; he or she can start to compose even while the other participants are writing (Saaed & Mohammed, 2020). Another reason why the introverts seem more active in online discussions is that the learners must express their attitudes such as agreement, curiosity and boredom explicitly

58 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

in online discussions and cannot rely on paralinguistic cues as in F2F discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021). In F2F discussions, the introverts are usually more reserved, less confident and deep in reflection (Chew & Ng, 2016; Whitworth, 2009). They feel nervous and awkward easily when immediate response is anticipated from them. The situation is more frightening to the introverts when they are in a large group F2F discussion. This is exemplified by the following excerpt where the introverted learner expresses her feelings after experiencing large group discussions held face-to-face and online: I prefer online discussion because it’s good and effective. Shy people normally afraid to discuss face-to-face because they don’t have any confidence.

Surprisingly, even though the introverts who have better English language proficiency have considerably good command of English language, they hardly speak during F2F discussions and a majority of them mention their personality as one of the inhibiting factors for them to speak confidently in F2F discussions. However, even though the introverted ESL learners prefer online discussions, they also recognize the importance of F2F discussions. The following excerpt further accentuates the idea. i prefer online discussion because i’m a shy person. but f2f is good because we can improve our speaking and can build confidence. i think f2f can improve our communication skill. i’m a shy girl and for me to improve this, i have to practice more because practice makes perfect.

For the extroverts who are more confident in themselves, they are found to be active in both F2F and online discussions. This is because they are comfortable to be around people, tend to speak whatever they are thinking and more adventurous in trying the target language (Naik, 2010; Walker, 2020). Therefore, they are found to dominate F2F discussions. It is important to note that F2F discussions can be easily dominated by the extroverts or learners who have higher language proficiency. However, despite having more opportunities to express themselves, these extroverted or more proficient language learners actually dislike their dominance and hope that the others can join in. As an example: P11, Grp A: Other opinion(s)? P6, Grp A: I don’t agree too. Now i hate my voice. P2, Grp A: Yeah… kind of. I hate mine too

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

59

In contrast, online discussions garnered more positive response among the extroverted learners with high-intermediate language proficiency, as shown in the following comment by Participant 1 from Group A in her first online discussion: okay, time’s up, suddenly i feel that English class is fill with awesomeness! as the conclusion, do conserve water, as u know, we can’t even live without water. Do anything possible to save water, so long.

Thus, more efforts are needed to encourage balanced participation so that all learners can feel more positive towards the language-learning process. 4.2.2  Participation Styles of Learners with Different Levels of Language Proficiency The extroverted and introverted learners who have different levels of language proficiency behave differently and show different communication patterns in both F2F and online discussions (Chen & Caropreso, 2004; Chew & Ng, 2016). Usually, learners with higher language proficiency are more confident in using the language (Macintyre & Gregersen, 2012). They are found to be active and perform well in both F2F and synchronous text-based online discussion settings. Despite that, more proficient language learners are found to produce more language in F2F situations compared to online discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021; Collentine, 2009). This happens as less proficient learners are relatively quiet and this gives more opportunities for the more proficient language learners to express themselves. The less proficient learners are found to be more active in online discussions than in F2F discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021). This suggests that online discussions could be a more favorable environment for the less proficient learners to practice using the language as they may have felt more confident and motivated. Active production of the target language in discussions is also beneficial to the ESL learners as they can receive comprehensible input, negotiate meaning, obtain feedback and modify their output. This is in line with Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996) which believes that interaction can improve second-language acquisition (SLA) as the negotiation of meaning can increase the learners’ comprehension of

60 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

the input and the received feedback can also enable them to notice linguistic features. It is also interesting to note that low-proficiency learners usually produce longer turn lengths in synchronous online discussions even though fewer words are still produced regardless of the medium of communication (Chew & Ng, 2021). Learners with lower level of language proficiency also negotiate meaning more often than the more proficient language learners (Arslanyilmaz, 2012). This could be due to the difficulties they face in communication.

4.3   Lexical Complexity Lexical complexity refers to the learners’ ability to use a wide range of topic-related vocabulary. To determine if one type of discussion tends to be more lexically complex, or to exhibit greater lexical range, the standardized type–token ratios are calculated. Type refers to the different words while token refers to the number of words. Type–token ratios are the “total number of unique words, or types, divided by the total number of words, or tokens” (Scott, 2006). Type–token ratios or lexical density can help to investigate the nature of a medium (Yates, 2001). When the type–token ratio is higher, it means that the writing is more complex lexically (Bui, 2019; Cohen, Hunter, & Pressman, 2019). To get a running average type–token ratio, the standardized type–token ratio is usually computed for every 100 words for the discussion transcripts. When the type–token ratios of F2F and online text-based discussions are compared, the discourse in online text-based discussions is found to display higher lexical complexity (Chew, 2013; Fitze, 2006; Warschauer, 1996). The mean type–token ratios show that the use of vocabulary in online discussions is more like writing than speech. (Yates, 2001). This may be due to the written form used in online discussions which is more formal and concise, thus it is more capable of eliciting a wider range of vocabulary than spoken language (Lapadat, 2002). Apart from that, learners are found to convey emotions and ideas explicitly in the absence of nonverbal communications such as facial expressions, body language and tone of voice (Bekar & Christiansen, 2018; Fitze, 2006). Even though emoticons are used, the effect is not comparable to the facial expressions and body language that can be observed in F2F discussions (Shaari, 2020; Wang & Woo, 2007). Online discussions which involve typing are also self-paced and thus learners can have more time to observe, process, plan

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

61

and edit their messages to bring about higher-quality interlanguage (Ariza & Hancock, 2003; Yates, 2001). However, we should note that the vocabulary of synchronous online discussions is more limited than conventional writing as the exchanges are more rapid and spontaneous. This causes senders of the messages to often omit grammatical function words and use the first words they have in their mind. Thus, the range of lexical choices is narrower compared to conventional writing. Despite that, the discourse produced by the students in online discussions is more lexically complex, or in other words, it exhibits a greater lexical range and a wider range of vocabulary than the discourse produced in F2F discussions (Chew, 2013; Fitze, 2006; Warschauer, 1996). Mirzaei and Hayati (2018) found that, due to the more interactive and fast-paced nature of synchronous CMC, more negotiations of meaning and higher improvement in vocabulary learning among their learners occurred when compared to F2F communication. In other words, language learners are better at using and practicing a broader range of topic-­ related vocabulary in online discussions compared to F2F discussions. In speech, the speakers in F2F environments are inclined to use even more constricted range of lexical choices as they barely have time to go through all the choices and would normally pick the first words that cross their minds, resulting in the use of vocabulary in F2F communication being less varied (Jung, 2018). The spoken language used in F2F discussions is also more rapid, less formal and the lexical range is narrower compared to online discussions (Lapadat, 2002; Yates, 2001). In spite of the influence of the mechanical aspects of the medium, the use of vocabulary is also affected by the society and culture or the social context (Aravind & Rajasekaran, 2020). 4.3.1  Lexical Complexity of Learners with Different Personalities The discourse of extroverts is more lexically complex in online discussions. It is interesting to note that even though more words are produced by the extroverts in F2F discussions, the lexical complexity shown by them is higher in online discussions. Introverts also exhibit greater lexical range in online discussions than in F2F discussions. This suggests that the online environment may entail less repetition of words as the participants reflect before typing the messages. The higher lexical complexity shown by both extroverts and introverts in online discussions suggests that the online

62 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

setting can be conducive in eliciting discourse that displays a wider range of vocabulary. Compared to personality, a learner’s language proficiency may well play a more influential role in his or her use of vocabulary. Details are in the following section. 4.3.2  Lexical Complexity of Learners with Different Levels of Language Proficiency More proficient language-learners possess a wider vocabulary range and they are able to display higher language accuracy and more lexically complex language than the less proficient low–intermediate learners in both F2F and online discussions (Arslanyilmaz, 2012; Chew, 2013). When learners’ discourse in different discussion settings is compared, more lexically complex discourse is found in online discussions than in F2F discussions; irrespective of learners’ levels of language proficiency. Even extroverts with better language proficiency who have contributed more words in F2F discussions will not show a higher lexical complexity in F2F discussions due to the repetitive usage of words. Word repetition could occur as learners try to recall what they have wanted to say or when they discuss the pronunciation of words and try to pronounce the words correctly such as shown in the following dialogue: P1, Grp A P2, Grp A P1, Grp A P6, Grp A P2, Grp A P1, Grp A

Oh yeah… I think the most challenging part of learning English is maybe the pronunciation. Some of us… We never found the word… doesn’t know how to pronounce like apa [a Malay word which means ‘what’]“D E B U T” Some pronounce it “debut.” Some pronounce it “debut, debut” then what else? “debut”

“debut” … Then I found out it’s pronounced as “debut.”

“debut”

Seriously, right?

Right teacher?(teacher nodded)

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

P6, Grp A) P2, Grp A P6, Grp A P2, Grp A P6, Grp A P2, Grp A

63

Also actually the correct pronunciation for biscuit is “biskit”.

Yeah… it’s “biskit”

Do you know that?

Same as “b-a-n-a- n- a”—banana. It’s not ““banana”

banana “b- a- n-a- n-a- a”

OK

Sometimes, learners also mimic the pronunciation of their friends by repeating the phrase. This kind of repetition influences the lexical complexity of the learners in F2F discussions; especially the extroverts with higher language proficiency who have dominated the discussions. For instance: P6, Grp A P1, Grp A

OK… I also started learning English when i was a little girl. “when I was a little girl”

In addition, the speakers also stutter and pause more as they attempt to retrieve the right word to express their ideas. However, when they are stuck, the other participants help to complete the sentence. This can be seen in the excerpt below: P1, Grp I would like to start. Hmm… Having the… err… the… what… The B inconvenience of water actually err actually P2, Grp Disturbing B

64 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

The above scenario cannot be observed in online discussions. In online discussions, learners usually post complete sentences and the others would not know the difficulty the creator is having when constructing the message. When learners face difficulties in finding a suitable word, they could refer to other websites or utilize Google Translate. Learners can also refer to online translation or dictionary when they do not know certain words. Thus, learners could enhance their vocabulary through online discussions. This might also be a reason why the lexical complexity of the learners in online discussions is higher. In comparison, learners in F2F discussions cannot resort to a dictionary when they want to look up or look for a word. Even if a dictionary is brought along, it would be inconvenient and “slow.” This is because F2F interactions require prompt responses and the checking of a word affects spontaneous response. In contrast, participants in online discussions have the luxury of time whereby learners can monitor their use of language and refer to online resources for help without taking up others’ time and opportunities to respond. Thus, learners in F2F discussions usually depend on their friends for help when they are stuck in retrieving a suitable word. Sometimes, they would resort to strategies such as repeating the last word or phrase, pause or use gestures to get their friends to help. This further reduces the lexical complexity of the discourse displayed during F2F discussions. The next section looks at another aspect of learners’ discourse: interactive competence.

4.4   Interactive Competence Interactive competence refers to a learner’s ability to communicate with others using language functions. So, when a learner is shown to have higher interactive competence, it means that he or she has a higher ability to interact with others using language functions (Fitze, 2006; Chun, 1994). The categories of language functions put forward by Chun (1994) are as shown below: 1. Provides or requests clarifications for the subject or task. 2. Requests clarifications through statements or questions. 3. Provides response to the other participants without substantiating it (e.g. “yes”, “perhaps”, “I don’t agree”).

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

65

4. Statements for social purposes (e.g. greetings, thanks, apologies, farewells). 5. Meta-communications: admonitions, invitation for participation, expression of feelings (interest, boredom etc.) about the discussion/ topic; redirection to topic. Fitze (2006) finds that synchronous text-based online discussions contain a higher percentage of discourse which fulfils Chun’s (1994) language functions compared to F2F discussions. Conversely, Chew (2013) finds 30% more discourse which displays interactive competence in F2F discussions than in synchronous text-based online discussions. It should be noted that the F2F discussions in Chew (2013) are dominated by the extroverts with better language proficiency. So, when learners’ discourse which displays interactive competence is found to be higher in F2F discussions, the medium cannot be given the credit. Instead, the result may be attributable to the personality and language proficiency of the learners. The following subsections will further explain these variables. 4.4.1  Interactive Competence of Learners with Different Personalities Both extroverts and introverts have not shown significant differences in their interactive competence during discourse in different discussion settings. Interestingly, introverts surpass the extroverts in using more language functions in synchronous text-based online discussions although the difference is not statistically significant. Since extroverts usually dominate F2F discussions, they are also found to show more discourse which displays interactive competence in F2F discussions than the introverts. 4.4.2  Interactive Competence of Learners with Different Levels of Language Proficiency Learners with a better language proficiency show better interactive competence than less proficient learners in F2F discussions (Chew, 2013). Since the more proficient extroverts usually dominate F2F discussions, they are often found to be actively speaking up, supporting each other and inviting for more participation from the rest using language functions (Chew & Ng, 2021). Equipped with better language proficiency, they are

66 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

also found to produce fewer clarification requests and confirmation checks than the less proficient learners (Iwashita, 2001). In synchronous text-based online discussions, less proficient language learners are found to display the use of more language functions compared to the more proficient learners. It is interesting that even though the less proficient learners’ contribution is significantly smaller than the more proficient learners in online discussions, their use of language functions which display interactive competence are significantly higher than the more proficient learners. This suggests that the discourse of the low-intermediate learners in online discussions consists of less content but more interactive functions such as I agree and I don’t think so and thank you. The online setting may provide the less proficient learners with a more convenient platform to display interactive competence as the participants can easily track back previous messages and quote them in the new message that they are going to compose. In this setting, the participants can agree, disagree or display other language functions more effectively. Learners feel happy when their messages are quoted and supported by their peers. This has encouraged even more display of interactive competence in online discussions. Apart from discourse, group discussions in either CMC or F2F settings is also affected by a variety of social factors. The next section explains the influence of group composition on group discussions.

4.5   Group Composition and Student Interaction Simply creating an online discussion forum would not ensure its effective usage for learning purposes. Social dynamics among group members should also be considered during the implementation of group discussions because problems with the social dynamics among participants are often a major cause of ineffective group discussion (Pino-Pasternak, Whitebread, & Neale, 2018). For instance, students from the same clique might be supporting and adding on to each other’s comments eagerly while other students who do not belong to the clique might feel disconnected and just want to stay mum in the discussion even though they also have an extroverted personality with good language proficiency. Introverted students who are less socially outgoing and more reserved are more inclined to engage in one-way communication while extroverted students usually engage in an active two-way communication and learn collaboratively (Chen & Caropreso, 2004; Weiser, Blau, & Eshet-Alkalai,

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

67

2018). When extroverted and introverted students are grouped together, the rate of two-way communication among introverted students increases significantly as the discussions progress. The findings suggest that there should be a mixture of extroverted and introverted students in the same group for more effective communication. Likewise, results of research studies have also found that creating mixed-ability groups for collaborative work is good and especially beneficial for lower-ability learners who are learning in F2F environments (Foncha & Mafumo, 2017; Tutty & Klein, 2008).

4.6   Summary For interaction to impart messages that can trigger learning, the various ways people act, learn and make use of media must be considered (Chew & Ng, 2016; Lightbown & Spada, 2013). According to Skinner (1968), the failure to cater for the differences among learners may be the biggest source of inefficiency in teaching and learning. Furthermore, learners are the most important people in the teaching and learning process and should be at the top of the organizational chart rather than the bottom (Reigeluth, 1999 as cited in Whitlock, 2001). Therefore, a learner’s personality and language proficiency need to be considered during the teaching and learning process so that introverts and the less proficient learners who have limited language learning strategies will not be left behind (Chew & Ng, 2021). In general, this chapter highlights that different kinds of participation styles and discourse can be observed among different learners in different discussion settings (see Table 4.1 for a summary). Table 4.1  The use of English language among language learners with different personalities and language proficiency in F2F and online discussions The Use of English as a Second Language Face-to-Face (F2F)

Online

•  Dominated by the extroverts who are more proficient in the target language •  Lower lexical complexity is observed •  More interactive competence is shown by the extroverts

•  More balanced participation •  Higher lexical complexity is observed (especially among the extroverts and more proficient language learners) •  More interactive competence is shown by the less proficient learners

68 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Undeniably, both F2F and online discussions are valuable tools for teaching and learning. It is important for language instructors to utilize the medium of discussions in an effective way to promote language learning. Understanding the affordances of different discussions settings for different users will aid facilitation of effective discussions. The following chapter explores other factors such as confidence, motivation and noise that will influence the communication process during group discussions.

References Aravind, B.  R., & Rajasekaran, V. (2020). A qualitative research through an emerging technique to improve vocabulary for ESL learners. International Journal of Emerging Technologies, 11(2), 441–446. Ariza, E.  N., & Hancock, S. (2003). Second language acquisition theories as a framework for creating distance learning courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2) Retrieved from http://www. irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/142/710 Arslanyilmaz, A. (2012). An online task-based language learning environment: Is it better for advanced- or intermediate-level second language learners? The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 20–35. Bekar, M., & Christiansen, M. S. (2018). Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). In J.  I. Liontas, T.  International Association, & M.  DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235 Benson, A. D. (2003). Assessing participant learning in online environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 69–78. Bui, G. (2019). Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-­ task planning on L2 lexical complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (published online ahead of print 2019). https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-­2018-­0244 Chen, S., & Caropreso, E. J. (2004). Influence of personality on online discussion. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(2) Retrieved from www.ncolr.org/ Chew, S.  Y. (2013). Lexical complexity, interactive competence and participation style of ESL learners in face-to-face and online discussions. PhD thesis, University of Malaya. Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2016). The relevance of personality and language proficiency on the participation style of ESL learners in face-to-face and online discussions. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 605–613. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40299-­016-­0288-­z Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). Personality and language proficiency on ESL learners’ word contributions in face-to-face and synchronous online forums.

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

69

Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.24200/ jonus.vol6iss1pp199-­221 Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of Interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31. Cohen, K., Hunter, L., & Pressman, P. (2019). P-hacking lexical richness through definitions of “type” and “token”. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264, 1433–1434. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190470 Collentine, K. (2009). Learner use of holistic language units in multimodal, task-­ based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 68–87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/collentine.pdf Daele, S. V. (2005). The effect of extraversion on L2 oral proficiency. Retrieved from www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no24/vandaele.htm. Dendy, C. B. (2019). Online or face-to-face? A study of communication education modalities among non-traditional students (Order No. 27668963). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2354087454). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.um.edu.my:2048/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/doc view/2354087454?accountid=28930 Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire (adult and junior). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67–86. Foncha, J., & Mafumo, T. (2017). The use of mixed ability grouping in language FET classrooms: Language learning as co-construction of knowledge. Journal of Educational Studies, 16, 126–137. Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on corrective feedback and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction. System, 29(2), 267–287. Jung, Y. J. (2018). The role of socially-mediated alignment in the development of second language grammar and vocabulary: Comparing face-to-face and synchronous mobile-mediated communication. PhD thesis, Georgia State University. Jurin, R.  R., Roush, D., & Danter, J. (2010). Environmental communication: Skills and principles for natural resource managers, scientists and engineers (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 423–455.

70 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Kazdin, A.  E. (2000). Psychotherapy for children and adolescents: Directions for research and practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Kow, Y. C. (2012). Putting second language acquisition theories into practice: A case study. In Zuraidah Mohd Don (Ed)., English in multicultural Malaysia: Pedagogy and applied research (pp.  15–30). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4), 4. Lightbown, P.  M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.  163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia, Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press. MacIntyre, P., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and other emotions in language learning. In S.  Mercer, S.  Ryan, & M.  Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp.  103–118). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032829_8 Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 129–138. Maurino, P. (2006). Participation and online interaction: F2F vs. online. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(4), 257–266. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40. Mirzaei, S., & Hayati, A. F. (2018). Effects of the computer mediated communication interaction on vocabulary improvement. Telkomnika, 16(5), 2217–2225. https://doi.org/10.12928/TELKOMNIKA.v16i5.10195 Myers, I.  B. (2003). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type indicator (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Naik, A. (2010). Introvert vs Extrovert. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle. com/articles/introvert-­vs-­extrovert.html Opt, S. K., & Loffredo, D. A. (2000). Rethinking communication apprehension: A Myers–Briggs perspective. The Journal of Psychology, 134(5), 556–570.

4  CMC VS. F2F: DISCOURSE AND PARTICIPATION STYLES OF DIFFERENT… 

71

Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS): Assessing your own learning and working styles. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 208–215). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Pino-Pasternak, D., Whitebread, D., & Neale, D. (2018). The role of regulatory, social, and dialogic dynamics on young children’s productive collaboration in group problem solving. In V.  Grau & D.  Whitebread (Eds.), Relationships between Classroom Dialogue and Support for Metacognitive, Self-Regulatory Development in Educational Contexts. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 162, 41–66. Saaed, S., & Mohammed, A. (2020). The effect of using discussion boards on EFL writing classes: An action research case study. Academic Journal of Nawroz University, 9(3), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.25007/ajnu.v9n3a773 Scott, M. (2006). Oxford WordSmith tools manual version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.lexically.net/downloads/version4/wordsmith.pdf Shaari, A. H. (2020). Accentuating illocutionary forces: Emoticons as speech act realization strategies in a multicultural online communication environment. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 26, 135–155. https:// doi.org/10.17576/3L-­2020-­2601-­10 Shehni, M. C., & Khezrab, T. (2020). Review of literature on learners’ personality in language learning: Focusing on extrovert and introvert learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(11), 1478–1483. https://doi.org/10.17507/ tpls.1011.20 Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton Century Croft. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.  G. Widdowson (pp.  125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Taylor, M. (2020). Personality styles: Why they matter in the workplace. Economic Alternatives, 1, 148–163. https://doi.org/10.37075/EA.2020.1.08 Ting, S.-H., Soekarno, M., & Lee, P.-Y. (2017). Communication strategy use and proficiency level of ESL learners. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 14(1), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.1.11.162 Tohver, G. C. (2020). Extraversion, personality correlates of. In B. J. Carducci, C. S. Nave, A. Fabio, D. H. Saklofske, & C. Stough (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118970843.ch204 Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib. org/p/67664/

72 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Walker, D. L. (2020). Extraversion–Introversion. In B. J. Carducci, C. S. Nave, J. S. Mio, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547143.ch28 Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26. Weiser, O., Blau, I., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). How do medium naturalness, teaching–learning interactions and students’ personality traits affect participation in synchronous E-learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.001 Whitlock, Q. (2001). Course design for online learning–what’s gone wrong? In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online: Pedagogy for new technologies (pp. 182–194). London: Kogan Page. Whitworth, K. F. (2009). The discussion forum as a locus for developing L2 pragmatic awareness. In L. B. Abraham & L. Williams (Eds.), Electronic discourse in language learning and language teaching (pp.  11–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Yates, S. J. (2001). Researching Internet Interaction: Sociolinguistics and corpus analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 93–146). London: Sage. Zaid, S. B., Zakaria, M. H., Rashid, R. A., & Ismail, N. S. (2016). An examination of negotiation process among ESL learners in higher institution. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(6), 228–234.

CHAPTER 5

Other Factors Influencing Communication during Group Discussions

In addition to discussion settings (e.g. face-to-face or online) and learners’ individual differences (e.g. personality, levels of language proficiency), there are also other factors which could influence the communication process during large group discussions. The main factors that will be discussed in this chapter are the affective domain, noise and distractions.

5.1   The Affective Domain The affective domain refers to the area related to the attitude and emotion of the learners. This is an important factor which influences language learning (Krashen, 1987). According to Krashen’s (1981) affective hypothesis, when learners are more positive, motivated and confident, their affective filter is lower and thus they will be more willing to communicate more actively with others using the target language and improve their listening and speaking skills as well as language knowledge. Given the freedom to express as many opinions as they would like to at anytime and anywhere without the need to wait for their turns and anyone stopping them, language learners are found to feel more positive towards the use of synchronous text-based online discussions, as they can share more ideas, receive more feedback and better understand others’ opinions (Chew & Ng, 2021; Perveen, 2016; Kim, 2012; Vonderwall, Liang, & Alderman, 2007; Wang & Woo, 2007; Warschauer, 1998). The online platform is deemed to be less intimidating as the learners need not worry © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_5

73

74 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

about other people’s reactions towards what they have conveyed. This, in turn, creates a level playing field providing equal opportunity for all to voice their thoughts. This is also preferred by learners in subordinated positions such as the introverted and the less proficient learners (Chew & Ng, 2021). Apart from that, language learners who are also digital natives feel more relaxed and comfortable with online discussions as they are familiar with the use of computers and the Internet. More importantly, they like to type and love to use computers; as can be seen in the following excerpt: i prefer more to online discussion because i love to use computer… in that way, i can survey the feedback comments from others to me… i also can type all the things inside my mind freely because i had less confident to talk face to face with others especially with someone that i do not know. (Participant 15, Group B)

Some language-learners also describe online discussions as fun and interesting (Chew, 2013). This may be related to the students’ experience whereby online discussions are rarely held in their conventional language classes. With the learners feeling more positive about the discussion condition, their anxiety level would also become lower and they would be more receptive to comprehensible input and ultimately become more successful ESL learners (Krashen, 1987; Warschauer, 1996). Thus, the online environment is believed to be conducive for discussions when there are groups composed of different personality types and levels of language proficiency. Nonetheless, there are learners who feel that the messages in online discussions are not very informative-as can be seen in the following excerpt: f2f is better than online discussion! for me, we will talk crap when it comes to the online discussion

Despite that, the learner whose comments are above produced far more words in the online discussions (359 words) than in face-to-face (F2F) discussions (69 words). This might be related to her experience with online discussions—she is used to it and so she feels comfortable using it. This learner’s use of the word “crap” suggests that she expects more content. But, there are actually more people expressing themselves freely

5  OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNICATION DURING GROUP… 

75

online even though their speech is less concise, and there is also more discourse which displays interactive functions such as I agree, I don’t think so etc. As always, there are two sides to every coin. So, it will be beneficial to understand the use of different communication medium for individual students to achieve different learning objectives. Learners’ confidence and motivation are also crucial elements of the affective domain and they will be described in detail in the following parts. 5.1.1  Confidence/Language Anxiety Lack of confidence is one of the reasons learners contribute fewer words in large-group F2F discussions. Learners who belong to the introverts and lower language-proficiency group will relate to this more than the others. These students find themselves feeling nervous, worried, awkward, and scared when they are communicating face-to-face in front of a large group (Chew & Ng, 2021; Chen, 2019; Santos, Gorter, & Cenoz, 2017; Masoud Hashemi, 2011). They would be less interactive or feel shy to speak in F2F discussions due to their bad pronunciation and other flaws. This kind of feeling is also called language anxiety or communication apprehension. Language anxiety can stem from a learners’ self-efficacy (beliefs and perceptions of themselves), difficulties in language learning and the differences in culture, power or social status between the interlocutors. Anxiety is common among language learners. A small amount of anxiety can stimulate learning (Santos et al., 2017). However, when a learner’s anxiety increases, the affective filter will become higher and it can impede learning (Bashori, van Hout, Strik, & Cucchiarini, 2020; Saranraj & Meenakshi, 2016; Krashen, 1981). Learners are found to feel more confident in text-based online discussions (Chew & Ng, 2021). This is because they do not see the audience’s face and so they do not need to worry about their objections. Furthermore, online discussions enable all the participants, including the introverts, to speak. Therefore, they feel that they can express their ideas better and more clearly when they are typing. Moreover, online discussions do not require instant feedback, so the learners can ponder longer before giving their response. The following responses from the less-proficient introverts exemplify their lack of confidence to speak in front of people.

76 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

i prefer more online discussions than f2f… because i felt really awkward when i’m speak in english in front of the public, moreover i cannot think the word that i’m going to say because f2f is spontaneous. (Participant 22, Group B)

Interestingly, the extroverted learners who have lower command of English language feel shy about giving their opinions in F2F settings despite their extroverted personality. The reason may be caused by their considerably lower level of English language proficiency. They feel more comfortable and confident in front of computers. Talking to a group of people in F2F discussions is daunting for them. This attitude is found to differ greatly from the more proficient extroverted learners who savored F2F interactions. The extract below exemplifies the lack of confidence among the less proficient extroverts when they are involved in large-group F2F discussions: oh my god, the most challenging part is when I want to start speaking with the people which are really good in English. and sometimes I do not get the idea what I (am) supposed to speak. (Participant 17, Group B)

For the introverts who have a better command of English, about 75% of them mentioned their personality as one of the inhibiting factors for them to speak confidently in F2F discussions (Chew, 2013). As an example: I think, I would choose online because I can’t talk in front of people. I don’t have the confident in me. But, one day I promise I will talk in front of people fluently, but not now. Face to face is good, but I prefer speak my mind through typing. (Participant 12, Group A)

This shows that learners who have different personalities and levels of language proficiency have less confidence to communicate in F2F discussions. Therefore, teachers or facilitators need to build learners’ confidence by reducing their anxiety (Yasuda & Nabei, 2018; Fakieh, 2014; Matsuda & Gobel, 2004). A more relaxed F2F environment can be created with smaller group composition, longer preparation time and the provision of aids such as a glossary, dictionary and list of useful language phrases or structures.

5  OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNICATION DURING GROUP… 

77

5.1.2  Motivation Even if a learner is an introvert who is less proficient in English, he or she can outperform the extroverts or their peers with better language proficiency. When learners need to use English language in a variety of social situations or to achieve their career goals, they will be aware of the value of learning it and be more motivated to use it. In other words, motivation can influence a learner’s participation in group discussions. A majority of the extroverted learners with better command of English language have indicated their preference for F2F discussions. They recognize the importance of F2F interactions in training them to speak English confidently in front of others. They are also aware of the importance of F2F interactions in the real world. For instance, if they want to further their studies abroad, in an English-speaking country, they would need to speak English in F2F settings. Moreover, they know that they are the future leaders and thus need to be able to speak confidently in front of a crowd. The following is a response from a more proficient extroverted learner explaining her reasons for favoring F2F discussions: I love both! But somehow after 16 years of living, me myself express my idea better if I go online rather than f2f discussion. Still, f2f discussion is the one who will really help you. People maybe can write a good essay but it doesn’t mean that they have the ability to convey their messages to people, which is obviously more important. Long live face-to face discussion! Hahahahaha. (Participant 6, Group A)

Unsurprisingly, in F2F discussions, the more proficient extroverted learners are found to lead most of the times. They kick off the discussions, initiate shifts in the topic and conclude the discussions. The excerpt below shows the “leader” role being taken up by one of the more proficient extroverts: So as the student in this school. So what do you think about the inconvenience of shortage of water in this school? Anyone wants to say? What?? So apart from that do you think do you think what do you think is the school’s role in order to prevent; to cope with water shortage. I mean apart from students, the schools also have to do their roles in to help us coping with water shortage. Reduce lots and lots of water. I think that is all for our discussion… ha ha ha,

78 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

There are also less proficient extroverts who are unperturbed by considerations of their language proficiency. For instance, Awww, for me F2F is more worked compared online discussions. Well, in order to be fluent in English we should be brave in front of crowd, right ? It doesn’t matter if we pronounce some other words which is quite bizarre wrongly, at least we’re trying to be brave as well & not COWARD yeahhh! cheers [b] (Participant 14, Group A)

The above participant knows that she should be brave enough to use the language even though there are flaws in her language. She is aware that she needs to talk to improve her speaking skills in order to be fluent. Her motivation sets her apart from the other low-proficiency students who prefer to stay passive in group discussions. Even though the introverts prefer online discussions which match with their personalities, they also recognize the importance of F2F discussions. For instance, Participant 9 from Group A prefers online discussions but she feels that F2F discussions would be more beneficial in building her level of confidence to speak in front of people even though it would be quite hard for her. The following excerpt from Participant 12 (Group B) in the online feedback session further accentuates the idea. i prefer online discussion because i’m a shy person. but f2f is good because we can improve our speaking and can build confidence. i think f2f can improve our communication skill. i’m a shy girl and for me to improve this, i have to practice more because practice makes perfect.

Similar responses have also been given by learners from the other groups, with none indicating objections to F2F or online discussions. Thus, even though the introverts and the less proficient language learners feel more confident in online discussions, they acknowledge the importance of F2F discussions and are motivated to improve their performance in F2F discussions.

5.2   Noise and Distractions Apart from the affective domain, noise and distractions could also affect the communication process.

5  OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNICATION DURING GROUP… 

79

In a F2F environment, learners often face difficulties in starting a discussion after a topic is given. They would be whispering among themselves or jotting down notes on a strip of paper instead of starting to speak in the group. The teacher needs to interrupt to set the discussion. The situation can be observed from the excerpt below: Teacher I am going to read it once again. Water conservation. Our topic for today is water conservation. The water supply in the hotel… hostel is disrupted again… for the umpteenth time! The school has done everything they could such as contacting the Water Supply Department and installing more water tanks. However, the condition has not improved. The students plan to take a more active role to cope with the water shortage. As a member of the Student Union, voice out the inconvenience of water shortage and discuss ways to cope with it. Any questions? If not you may start now. P2, Grp Who would want to start? B P1, Grp Everyone must… (others whispering) B Teacher Any questions? You can ask your friends here? [pause] Don’t need to whisper to your friends beside you... tell the whole group. [pause] What’s the first question there… hmm… voice out the inconvenience of water… when there is no water supply… P1, Grp difficult… B Teacher one by one P1, Grp It’s already started teacher? B Teacher Yea it’s already started. [ss giggling]. I heard you just whisper to your friends. Share your opinion with everyone (pauses)

In F2F discussions, noises that interrupt F2F discussions include giggles, whispers, the softness of the communicator’s voice and unexpected appearance of other people or creatures in the physical classroom setting. In addition, learners may also pay attention to the way others look or sound rather than the content of the messages. These factors can affect effective listening and cause reduced responses in F2F discussions. However, without making any sound, noise could also occur in online discussions. For instance, the stability of network connection might be interrupted and learners forced to change computers. Sometimes, the speed of the network is slow and it will interrupt the discussion process. There are also many distractions when a learner goes online as they are

80 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

able to access their social media accounts or watch videos online through platforms such as YouTube and Twitch. As discussed in Shannon’s (1948) model of the communication process, noise and distractions can hinder effective communication. Thus, a teacher or facilitator needs to be aware of the potential noises in different discussion settings, supervise the learners and be prepared to step in immediately when problems occur.

5.3   Summary When facilitating or taking part in a discussion, it is important to understand the discussion settings, the interlocutors as well as the other factors that could influence the communication process. We should be aware that learners are complex and that it is crucial to understand their individual differences as well as their emotions in terms of their attitude, confidence and motivation. Apart from that, we should also anticipate potential disruptions or noises that could occur in different discussion settings so that we are better prepared to intervene if problems arise. More guidelines and implications can be found in the next chapter.

References Bashori, M., van Hout, R., Strik, H., & Cucchiarini, C. (2020). Web-based language learning and speaking anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1770293 Chen, C. (2019). How does communication anxiety influence well-being? Examining the mediating roles of preference for online social interaction (POSI) and loneliness. International Journal of Communication, 13, 4795–4813. Chew, S.Y. (2013). Lexical complexity, interactive competence and participation style of ESL learners in face-to-face and online discussions. PhD thesis, University of Malaya. Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). Personality and language proficiency on ESL learners’ word contributions in face-to-face and synchronous online forums. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.24200/ jonus.vol6iss1pp199-­221 Fakieh Alrabai. (2014). The influence of teachers’ anxiety-reducing strategies on learners’ foreign language anxiety. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.890203

5  OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING COMMUNICATION DURING GROUP… 

81

Kim, I.-H. (2012). Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680970 Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S.  D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall. Masoud Hashemi. (2011). Language stress and anxiety among the English language learners. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1811–1816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.349 Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language classroom. System, 32(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2003.08.002 Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous e-language learning: A case study of virtual university of Pakistan. Open Praxis—International Council for Open and Distance Education, 8(1), 21–39. Santos, A., Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Communicative anxiety in the second and third language. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1258980 Saranraj, L., & Meenakshi, K. (2016). The influence of anxiety in second language learning: A case study with reference to engineering students in Tamil Nadu, India. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(42). https://doi. org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i42/102044 Shannon, C.  E. A. (1948). Mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423; 623–656. Vonderwall, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309–328. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26. Warschauer, M. (1998). Interaction, negotiation, and computer-mediated learning. In V. Darleguy, A. Ding, & M. Svensson (Eds.), Educational technology in language learning: Theoretical considerations and practical (pp.  125–136). Lyon, France: National Institute of Applied Sciences. Yasuda, T., & Nabei, L. (2018). Effects of coping strategies on language anxiety of Japanese EFL learners: Investigating willingness to communicate. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(5), 905–915. https://doi.org/10.17507/ jltr.0905.03

CHAPTER 6

Implications for Language Learning

Discussion is one of the language-learning activities that should be included in a language class as it contains natural communicative input. In language classes, face-to-face (F2F) discussions are often held because it is a beneficial activity which is easy to carry out. Moreover, F2F communication is crucial for real-world needs. Because F2F discussion is favored mainly by the more proficient extrovert learners but found intimidating by the others, measures need to be taken so that the less proficient introvert learners can feel sufficiently confident to take an active part in F2F discussions. In addition to the traditional F2F communication, the advent of computers has enabled a new way of communication to be introduced (Yao & Ling, 2020; Hosseini, 2015). Now, discussions can be held online or in a computer-mediated communication (CMC) context, which is convenient and effective in observing learners’ active and balanced participation. The quality of language learning can also be improved through the use of a wider range of vocabulary and language functions (Bytheway, 2015; Arslanyilmaz, 2012; Chapelle, 2001; Warschauer, 1996). This is indeed true especially for introverted ESL learners and those who have lower language proficiency. In line with Foulger’s Ecological Model (2004), the medium plays a role in influencing the messages of certain group of learners more than the others. Different discussion environments can generate different types of participation styles and discourse among different types of learners; © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_6

83

84 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

language instructors thus need to pay close attention to discussion environments and the unique differences among the learners for more effective discussions that can promote language learning.

6.1   Model of Communication for Language Learners Based on the framework of Foulger (2004) and insights from research and relevant language-learning theories, a model which describes the communication process among language-learners in F2F and online settings is illustrated in Fig. 6.1. Generally, the group discussion model for language learners describes the importance of the medium and the participants (acting as creators or consumers) in affecting the messages composed using English as a second language. Unlike Foulger’s (2004) model, which describes the communication process in general, this model focuses on group discussions among language learners and adds aspects that can interrupt and enhance the communication process including affective domain, group dynamics,

Medium Messages Language

plan and create Creators

interpret interrupted by - affective domain (negative) - group dynamics - noise & distractions

enhanced by - affective domain (positive) - group dynamics - preparation & support

roles are interchangeable

Fig. 6.1  Group discussion model for language-learners

Consumers

6  IMPLICATIONS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 

85

noise and distractions, preparation and support. The noise factors which can adversely affect a discussion process include disturbing sounds, whispers or giggles that may inhibit or prevent effective listening. The affective domain can enhance the quality of the messages if the participants’ attitude is positive, but the reverse will apply if the learners have negative perceptions. Likewise, group dynamics which involve the way participants behave and respond to each other can also affect the discussion process in a positive or negative manner. This model will be helpful in enlightening language instructors and researchers about the aspects to take into account when facilitating discussions for learners to practice use of the target language.

6.2   Recommendations for Language Instructors Discussion activities can be carried out more effectively in a language class following the group discussion model for language learners. The medium of discussions and the learners’ individual differences in terms of personality and language proficiency are crucial aspects of the communication process, although they are seldom emphasized. Since less proficient and introverted learners usually do not perform as well as extroverted and more proficient learners, more guidance is needed to help them feel more comfortable in speaking up during discussions. Some suggestions for facilitating discussion activities in language classes are as follows: 1. Gain a better understanding of the learners in terms of their strengths, weaknesses, aims, interests, expectations, motivations and so on. It will be very helpful if this information is available in the student’s profile. If this is unavailable, an icebreaking session will be useful. 2. Set ground rules and expectations of learners’ behavior in discussions. Monitor and step in when necessary. This is important so that the participants know that you are serious about the ground rules and etiquette/ netiquette. 3. Discussions with a focus on social purposes should be created before learners practice discussing topical issues and reflective topics. This can help the learners to develop personal relationships with the other members, nurture a sense of community and feel more confident.

86 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

4. Create a topic which discusses the effectiveness of the discussion media and ask for suggestions to improve the F2F or synchronous online settings. This can enable learners to realize the importance of participating actively in either discussion setting and enable language teachers to better understand their learners and cater to their needs. 5. For online discussions, local constraints should also be looked at before implementing. A back-up plan is essential in case of technological disruptions. 6. Carry out online text-based discussions to promote balanced participation in a mixed classroom. Online text-based discussions are found to provide a safer and more comfortable environment for the introverted or less proficient learners. 7. Make online dictionary and Google Translate available for online discussions and encourage learners to use them. These tools can be exploited to increase learners’ range of vocabulary and motivate them to actively use the target language. 8. Allocate sufficient time for learners to prepare before F2F discussions. 9. Create small groups (four or five in a group) for F2F discussions; this is especially important for the introverts and the less proficient learners so that they can feel more confident. When these learners feel more confident with speaking the language in front of their friends, they will be more ready to join large-group F2F discussions. 10. Eliminate potential noise. In F2F discussions, encourage learners to listen attentively, speak clearly and focus on discussions rather than scripting. In online discussions, well-functioning computers and network connections need to be ensured. 11. In a mixed-ability class, the extrovert and more proficient ESL learners can be given the role of a mentor or co-host whose main task is to listen and to provide feedback to the less proficient and introverted learners. However, training needs to be given so that their feedback is constructive rather than destructive.

6  IMPLICATIONS FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING 

87

6.3   Summary Overall, language instructors or discussion facilitators should utilize the different discussion environments strategically for learners with different characteristics to meet the learning objectives more effectively. Ultimately, computers or digital devices are merely tools that we use to accomplish a task or goal. We should use our wisdom to make use of the medium and help learners to become eloquent and well-functioning members of society. Thus far, the online communication which we have discussed mainly refers to text-based platforms. The next chapter will explore some current developments in communication and language learning brought about by recent technological advancements such as multimodality, mobile-­ mediated communication, voice chat, web conferencing, online gaming and computer or mobile-assisted language learning.

References Arslanyilmaz, A. (2012). An online task-based language learning environment: Is it better for advanced- or intermediate-level second language learners? The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 20–35. Bytheway, J. (2015). A taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies used in massively multiplayer online role-playing games. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 508–527. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i3.26787 Chapelle, C. (2001). A “Computer-assisted language learning”. In Computer assisted language learning: Critical concepts in linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 391–413). London: Routledge., 2009. Foulger, D. (2004). Models of the communication process. Retrieved from http:// davis.foulger.info/papers/ecologicalModelOfCommunication.htm Hosseini, S.  B. (2015). Computer-mediated communication: Pedagogical and language learning implications. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(1), 163–176. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26. Yao, M. Z., & Ling, R. (2020). What is computer-mediated communication?—An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz027

CHAPTER 7

Current Developments

The growth of technology has been rapidly increasing in the past two decades and has been accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic which has pushed language educators and learners to grapple with e-learning and increasingly rely on computer-mediated communication (CMC). With the rise of new technological aids in the workplace and education sectors (e.g. Google Meet, Zoom, Discord, etc.), the importance of technology is further emphasized in the so-called fluid working and learning environments. A majority of the learners now are digital natives who are familiar with technology. They find traditional English language teaching methods to be irrelevant and seek, indeed expect, the use of technology in language learning (Mofareh, 2019; Pazilah, Hashim, & Yunus, 2019). Statistics have shown that 75% to 95% of students who adopt modern means of English language learning achieve higher results in their attainment in English than students who are taught by traditional means (Mofareh, 2019). Technology has revolutionized the education field, making it more flexible for different types of English language learners. With a selection of digital tools such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops and computers to ease accessibility, language learners are able to maximize their resources to learn English within an informal learning environment. Thus, technology has become a key feature of the education field as it offers an abundance of new learning tools that can effectively aid English language learners (Rafiq & Hashim, 2018). This chapter will address © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0_7

89

90 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

recent developments in the use of technology in communication and language learning by exploring some popular trends such as multimodality, mobile-mediated communication, voice chat, web conferencing, online gaming, computer and mobile-assisted language learning.

7.1   Multimodality in Communication The concept of multimodality can be explained using Kress and Leeuwen’s (1996) Principle of Multimodal Communication. This defines multimodality as the way in which people communicate using multiple semiotic modes such as linguistics, textual, space and visual simultaneously. In face-to-face (F2F) communication, multimodality is presented through voice, discourse, eye gaze, facial movements and body language. Media richness theory makes the point that F2F communication is rich because of the availability of verbal and nonverbal cues. On the other hand, online communication which was initially, and is still widely, text-­ based is tending towards becoming a multimodal communication with the following features to make the delivery of intended messages more effective: • Text (letters, numbers, punctuation, special characters, and controls) • Graphics (lines, circles, boxes, shading, fill colors etc.) • Images (still pictures, expressed as the colors of many small individual picture elements (pixels), either photographs or paintings) • Audio (sound, including voice, music, and special effects) • Video (successive pictures presented sufficiently rapidly to give the appearance of smooth motion) • Animations, flashes and 3D The incorporation of the above features in a rich digital learning platform captures learners’ attention and provides contextualized cues which eases learners’ comprehension difficulties and enhances their motivation in communication and language learning (Butler, Someya, & Fukuhara, 2014; Derakhshan, Salehi, & Rahimzadeh, 2015; Lin, Chen, & Liu, 2017). More importantly, the presence of up-to-date sound and visual effects in electronic devices can reflect real-life situations, which enables more exciting discussions among learners.

7  CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS 

91

7.2   Mobile-mediated Communication (MMC) & Voice Chat Mobile-mediated communication (MMC) has become increasingly popular due to its convenience and flexibility. Like computer-mediated communication (CMC), it enables learners to communicate at any time and anywhere using similar applications. CMC would usually entail the use of desktop or laptop computer, which is usually at a fixed location, while MMC utilizes mobile phones. With the advent of smartphones, instant messaging applications such as WeChat, WhatsApp and Telegram are widely used. One of the technological affordances of these mobile messaging applications is voice recording which enables communicators to send voice notes and engage in voice chat or oral communication. It can also be a platform for learners to practice speaking, since they can listen to their recordings and revise their pronunciation, fluency, choice of words and so on. This creates a ‘safe space’ which reduces language learners’ anxiety and encourages them to express themselves better (Chen, 2018; Satar & Özdener, 2008). It also provides learners with more opportunities for oral communication as they are not limited to a F2F classroom setting only. In view of the versatility offered by MMC, it not surprising that the use of MMC is seen as a solution for academic institutions and professional businesses to communicate or chat with their students or business partners via instant messaging platforms (e.g. Telegram, WhatsApp, WeChat) or teleconferencing application such as Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Team or Skype. More information about online video conferencing can be found in the next section.

7.3   Online Video Conferencing When people cannot meet physically at the same place, video calls, which involve the use of text, audio and video, are the next best option to maintain relationship or to get tasks done. Video calls or online conferencing are made possible by online synchronous meeting tools (SMTs) such as Google Meet, Zoom, Cisco Webex, Microsoft Team and Skype. Some useful and interactive features offered include screen sharing, breakout rooms, virtual whiteboard, annotation tools, chat box, polls and emoticons to show agreement. These tools have received exceptional attention

92 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

and use lately, particularly because people are being encouraged to maintain a safe physical distance. Even though the online SMTs allow people to meet face-to-face, it is not always possible due to insufficient or low-quality equipment, technical issues, network interruptions, users’ computer self-efficacy and so on. Sometimes, users who prefer not to show their faces may turn off their own cameras. This could be due to the awkwardness that stems from watching oneself while communicating using webcam (Smidt, McAndrew, & McDyre, 2017). When using a webcam to present, it is also important to take note of the position of the webcam. To make better eye contact, the webcam should be placed at the level of your eyes and the lighting behind the webcam should be good so that you look clear to the audience. If possible, sit away from the webcam so that your hand gestures could be seen. In addition, it is a good idea to obtain feedback from the participants by asking them to respond in a chat box. Sometimes, the background chat in the chat box may cause distractions and so it will be helpful to have an assistant in charge of the chat box. In addition, the static noises coming from unmuted microphones could also be disturbing. Therefore, advance preparation and guidelines about netiquette and the use of microphones, webcams and chat box are necessary to minimize potential technical issues and interruptions.

7.4   Online Gaming Playing digital games was once frowned upon by the educators as it was thought to be addictive and to cause an individual to be unproductive, unhealthy and anti-social. However, online games are now seen more positively, even considered as electronic sport or e-sports. Most video games are driven by an immersive storyline and tactical gaming mechanisms which are most often constructed in English (Jack & Muhammad, 2017). The engaging aspect of video games and the need to use language to unlock achievements make video games a potential tool to improve language (Butler et al., 2014; Bytheway, 2015). Playing games online with friends is found to be more fun and effective for language learning compared to playing games in offline mode (Chik, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising that online gaming is becoming increasingly popular in the studies of language development. Moreover, Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) provide

7  CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS 

93

gamers with access to theme-based virtual worlds where they can communicate online in real-time with their peers, have opportunities to role-­ play as in-game characters, co-op gameplay through guild membership, as well as solve problems while going through the immersive storyline (Jack & Muhammad, 2017). The role-playing element in MMORPGs has been found to be effective in lowering players’ inhibitions, enabling them to express their emotions effectively using the moving emoticons provided in online games (Peterson, 2010). Research has also found a significance increase in students’ engagement, interaction and language production when they are playing online games such as OpenSim or Habbo Hotel during gameplay sessions (Berns, Rodriguez, & Gomez, 2013; Liao, Chang, & Chan, 2018; Pitarch, 2018). Students are able to interact and collaborate better with one another and are seen to be more critical when they perform specific activities in which they are able to use language precisely and solve language problems by paraphrasing, seeking clarification and responding to confirmation requests (Berns et  al., 2013). On top of that, online gamers are found to use vocabulary-­learning strategies and pick up new terms or vocabulary when they interact with their friends (Bytheway, 2015). Aside from solving problems and building projects, MMORPG players may also practice their language skills through their interaction with other speakers during sessions (Bytheway, 2015; Strachan, Kongmee, & Pickard, 2016; Canto & Jauregi, 2017; Chotipaktanasook & Reinders, 2018). This further concretizes the effectiveness of game-based learning, as language learners are able to participate in collaborative communication as well as acquire language through negotiation and language-learning strategies (Pitarch, 2018). Furthermore, MMORPGs also encourage players to join a collaborative community and participate in discussions related to the games they are playing. For instance, interacting in chat rooms, forums or social networking sites (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) and exchanging information through YouTube videos, blogs (e.g. BlogSpot, Wordpress), content communities (e.g. Reddit) or virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life, VR Chat) (Pitarch, 2018). In accordance with Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, MMORPGs can enhance language learning via a collaborative and interactive setting. To explore the potential of game-based learning platforms in promoting communication and collaboration, language learners and educators could explore Minecraft: Education Edition, The Mad City Mystery, Second Life, Everquest, World of Warcraft (WoW). However, it

94 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

should be noted that online gaming can be addictive and can cause users to develop a confused identity. Therefore, learners should always self-­ regulate their emotion when playing online games (Mirnader Miri, Nader Hajloo, Sajjad Basharpoor, & Mohamad Narimani, 2020).

7.5   Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL) Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) involves the use of computers or electronic devices to amplify students’ language learning experience through unlimited access to knowledge at one’s fingertips (Miftachudin, 2012; Mutlu & Eröz-Tuğa, 2013). It encompasses CMC and the use of multimodality in communication, web conferencing, online gaming and so on. In digital storytelling, technology and interactive media are integrated which allows learners to visualize and use their imaginations in a creative way (Thang et al., 2014). With virtual reality (VR) technology, learners’ immersion in a simulated and interactive virtual environment is further enhanced. The multisensory stimuli of the virtual environment enable learners to actively visualize, comprehend and construct their own knowledge to improve their target-language ability (Lin & Lan, 2015). Thus, the use of VR technology is found to positively affect learners’ vocabulary and learning trajectory. Drawing on the vast online linguistic resources, learners can also learn independently as well as enhancing their language capabilities through the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC). CMC allows learners to interact and discuss with one another without having the need to be present at the same place. Apart from the use of emails, online forums and instant messaging applications, social media such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and blogs have now become preferred platforms for learners to connect with others and develop their language skills through collaborative learning and discussions in an innovative manner (Mansor, 2016; Yunus, Hashim, Embi, & Lubis, 2010). New inventions have made CALL very exciting and their use is no longer limited to computers or laptops. Smartphones have made interpersonal communication and language learning more spontaneous and convenient. The following section explains mobile-assisted language learning, which has emerged following the popularity of smartphones.

7  CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS 

95

7.6   Mobile-assisted Language Learning (MALL) Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) is defined as the use of mobile technology in language learning, where the nature of language learning is spontaneous and informal (Miangah & Nezarat, 2012). Contrary to the traditional classroom learning setting, MALL enables learners to have a sense of freedom in which they are able to develop their language competencies at different places and times using MALL applications. Studies found that learners have generally indicated positive attitudes towards the use of mobile technology as it is capable of producing better results in terms of language proficiency (Nariyati, Sudirman, & Pratiwi, 2020; Oberg & Daniels, 2013). The benefits of MALL also extend to the increase of proficiency in oral performance among foreign-language learners, due to the implementation of CMC task-based activities in foreign-­ language learning classroom (Abrams, 2003; Payne & Whitney, 2002; Shi, Luo, & He, 2017). Simultaneously, the utilization of MALL tools has helped students to reduce their anxiety in the foreign-language classroom, as indicated in Kessler’s (2010) study showing that language learners feel less self-conscious and anxious and are more motivated to learn the language. To further elaborate, language learners can use mobile phones to communicate with one another and engage with real-world experiences where they are able to apply language skills and words learnt in classroom sessions in authentic learning contexts. Mobile devices also enable learners to contribute to the creation of the learning content through the use of applications such as YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and so on. The effectiveness of e-learning through mobile devices has helped learners to break through learning barriers as they continuously learn language and use ite to communicate with others beyond classroom sessions (Alqarni, Bown, Pullen, & Maters, 2020). On top of that, with the vast expansion of the Internet, learners are able to access their MALL applications all the time, and this further aids their language-learning capabilities. Additionally, language learning applications such as Kahoot!, Duolingo, Babel and Memrise also help language users to further learn the language beyond the rules and time constrictions of the classroom setting (Loewen et al., 2019). These mobile applications aid language-learners as they are able to learn at their own pace and leisure. Moreover, learners also find the gamification aspect of these mobile applications motivating and engaging (Loewen et al., 2019). Despite that, there are still learners who eventually

96 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

lose interest in learning through these applications (Botero, Questier, & Zhu, 2019). Therefore, it is important to support self-directed learning with encouragement and appropriate training (Botero et al., 2019).

7.7   Summary This chapter has highlighted some recent developments in the use of technology in communication and language learning. Some of the important aspects include multimodality in communication, mobile-mediated communication and voice chat, online conferencing, online gaming, computer-­ assisted language learning and mobile-assisted language learning. These features are found to secure learners’ attention and motivation. They are also important in preparing learners for Industrial Revolution 4.0. As technology continues to make advances, we should continually update ourselves with the way different people or learners communicate using different technological tools. Despite the benefits technology has to offer, we need to use it carefully due to the potential distractions it carries. To avoid misuse and possible distractions from entertainment, supervision is needed, especially when technology is being used by younger learners. We would also caution ESL language researchers and practitioners about the incorporation of new technology in an ESL class. New technology should always be examined vis-à-vis different groups of learners to maximize its full potential. Simply implementing a new form of technology is not recommended. One should also bear in mind that there is no learner who is the same and thus “no single pedagogical solution which is applicable to all classrooms” (Ellis, 1990, p. 68). An eclectic approach should be practiced, taking account of the teacher’s level of computer skills and personality, and every learner’s language proficiency, personality, expectations and preferences. After all, technology is only a tool and it needs our strategic use to realize its maximum potential for different users. Acknowledgement  We would like to acknowledge and thank Rino Shafierul Azizie Bin Shahrir Raghbir for his contributions to this chapter.

7  CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS 

97

References Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157–167. Alqarni, A., Bown, A., Pullen, D., & Maters, J. (2020). Mobile assisted language learning in learning Arabic as a second language in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(2), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.36348/ sjhss.2020.v05i02.009 Berns, A., Rodriguez, F., & Gomez, R. (2013). Collaborative learning in 3-D virtual environments. Proceedings of the Global Perspectives on Computer-Assisted Language Learning (WorldCALL), Glasgow, 2013. Botero, G. G., Questier, F., & Zhu, C. (2019). Self-directed language learning in a mobile-assisted, out-of-class context: Do students walk the talk? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(2), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09588221.2018.1485707 Butler, G., Someya, Y., & Fukuhara, E. (2014). Online games for young learners’ foreign language learning. ELT Journal, 68(3), 265–275. https://doi. org/10.1093/elt/ccu008 Bytheway, J. (2015). A taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies used in massively multiplayer online role-playing games. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 508–527. Canto, S., & Jauregi, M. (2017). Language learning effects through the integration of synchronous socializing network opportunities in language curricula: The case of video communication and Second Life. Language Learning in Higher Education Journal, 7(1), 21–53. Chen, Y. (2018). Reducing language speaking anxiety among adult EFL learners with interactive holographic learning support system. In T.‑. T.  Wu, Y.‑. M. Huang, R. Shadiev, L. Lin, & A. Starčič (Eds.), Innovative technologies and learning (ICITL 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science). https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­99737-­7_10 Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 85–100. Retrieved from http:// llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/chik.pdf. Chotipaktanasook, N., & Reinders, H. (2018). A massively multiplayer online role-playing game and its effects on interaction in the second language: Play, interact, and learn. In B. Zou & M. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of research on integrating technology into contemporary language learning and teaching (pp. 367–389). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Derakhshan, A., Salehi, D., & Rahimzadeh, M. (2015). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL): Pedagogical pros and cons. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 4(3), 111–120. https://doi. org/10.18488/journal.23/2015.4.3/23.3.111.120 Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

98 

S. Y. CHEW AND L. L. NG

Jack, C. S., & Muhammad, M. M. (2017). Online games: The impact on gamers’ mobile language and language learning. Science International, 29(1), 165. Kessler, G. (2010). Fluency and anxiety in self-access speaking tasks: The influence of environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 361–375. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. Liao, C. C., Chang, W. C., & Chan, T. W. (2018). The effects of participation, performance, and interest in a game-based writing environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12233 Lin, M.-H., Chen, H.-C., & Liu, K.-S. (2017). A study of the effects of digital learning on learning motivation and learning outcome. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13. https://doi. org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00744a Lin, T. J., & Lan, Y. J. (2015). Language learning in virtual reality environments: Past, present, and future. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 486–497. Loewen, S., Crowther, D., Isbell, D. R., Kim, K. M., Maloney, J., Miller, Z. F., & Rawal, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: A Duolingo case study. ReCALL, 31(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000065 Mansor, N. (2016). Exploring the impact of Facebook interaction on language learning. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language, Education, and Innovation (ICLEI), London, 2016. Miangah, T.  M., & Nezarat, A. (2012). Mobile-assisted language learning. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems, 3(1), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijdps.2012.3126 Miftachudin, M. (2012). The role of Computer Assisted Language earning (CALL) for English language learning of elementary and high schools in Indonesia. Register Journal, 5(2), 259–274. Mirnader Miri, Nader Hajloo, Sajjad Basharpoor, & Mohamad Narimani. (2020). The mediating role of seeking sensation in the relationship between emotional self-regulation and confused identity with video-computer games addiction. Journal of Psychological Sciences, 18(83), 2163–2173. Retrieved from http:// magiran.com/p2084317 Mofareh, A.  A. (2019). The use of technology in English language teaching. Frontiers in Education Technology, 2(3), 168–180. Mutlu, A., & Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2013). The role of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in promoting learner autonomy. Egitim Arastirmalari— Eurasian Journal or Educational Research, 51, 107–122. Nariyati, N. P. L., Sudirman, S., & Pratiwi, N. P. A. (2020). EFL pre-service teachers’ perception toward the use of mobile assisted language learning in teaching English. International Journal of Language Education, 4(1), 38–47. Oberg, A., & Daniels, P. (2013). Analysis of the effect a student-centred mobile learning instructional method has on language acquisition. Computer Assisted

7  CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS 

99

Language Learning, 26(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822 1.2011.649484 Payne, J.  S., & Whitney, P.  J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32. Pazilah, F. N., Hashim, H., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Using technology in ESL classroom: Highlights and challenges. Creative Education, 10, 3205–3212. Peterson, M. (2010). Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 429–439. Pitarch, R. C. (2018). An approach to digital game-based learning: Video-games principles and applications in foreign language learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(6), 1147–1159. Rafiq, K.  R. M., & Hashim, H. (2018). Augmented reality game (ARG), 21st century skills and ESL classroom. Journal of Educational and Learning Studies. https://doi.org/10.32698/0232 Satar, M., & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.2008.00789.x Shi, Z., Luo, G., & He, L. (2017). Mobile-assisted language learning using WeChat instant messaging. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 12(2), 16–26. Smidt, E., McAndrew, A., & McDyre, B. (2017). Synchronous video chat sessions in a TESOL online graduate course: Instructor roles and best practices. In I. Sanz-Sánchez, S. V. Rivera-Mills, & R. Morin (Eds.), Online language teaching research: Pedagogical, academic and institutional issues (pp.  79–99). Corvallis: Trysting Tree Books. https://doi.org/10.5399/osu.ubi1.e Strachan, R., Kongmee, I., & Pickard, A. (2016). Using massively multiplayer role playing games (MMORPGs) to support second language learning: A case study of the student journey. In K. Terry & A. Cheney (Eds.), Utilizing virtual and personal learning environments for optimal learning (pp.  87–110). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Thang, S. M., Sim, L. Y., Mahmud, N., Lin, L. K., Zabidi, N. A., & Ismail, K. (2014). Enhancing 21st century learning skills via digital storytelling: Voices of Malaysian teachers and undergraduates. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 489–494. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Yunus, M. M., Hashim, H., Embi, M. A., & Lubis, M. A. (2010). The utilization of ICT in the teaching and learning of English: “Tell Me More”. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 685–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2010.12.218

Index

A Affective domain, 73–78, 84, 85 Affective hypothesis, 4, 73

Efficiency framework, 39 Extroverts, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61–63, 65, 76–78

C Common ground theory, 35–37, 40 Communicative language teaching, 3, 11, 41 Comprehensible output hypothesis, 3, 4, 8, 11 Computer-assisted language learning (CALL), 41, 94, 96 Computer-mediated communication (CMC), v–vii, 5, 10, 25, 27–45, 53–68, 83, 89, 91, 94, 95 Cues-filtered-out theories, 33, 34, 40, 43

G Grammar-translation, 2 Group discussion model for language learners, 84, 85

E Ecological model of the communication process, 22–24, 28, 83

H Hyperpersonal model of CMC, 38–40, 43 I ICT succession model, 39–40 Information theory model, 17–21 Input hypothesis, 3, 8, 11 Interactive competence, 53, 64–66 Interactive model, 20–21 Intermediary model of communication, 18, 21

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Y. Chew, L. L. Ng, Interpersonal Interactions and Language Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0

101

102 

INDEX

Introverts, 55–58, 61, 65, 67, 75–78, 86 L Lack of social context cues hypothesis, 32–34 Lexical complexity, 53, 60–64 M Media richness theory, 32–34, 36, 40, 90 Media synchronicity theory, 36–37, 40 Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), 87, 90, 94–96 Multimodality, 34, 87, 90, 94, 96

O Online conferencing, 91, 96 Online gaming, 87, 90, 92–94, 96 S Social information processing theory, 40, 43 Social presence theory, 32–34 T Transactional model of communication, 21–22 V Voice chat, 87, 90, 91, 96